Agricultural Marketing Service
The U.S. Codex Office
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Disability Employment Policy Office
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to establish free and restricted percentages for the 2023-24 crop year under the Federal marketing order for tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. This action establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2023-24 crop that may be handled in commercial outlets. Adjusting supply to meet market demand should stabilize marketing conditions and help improve grower returns.
Effective September 11, 2024.
Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Chief, Southeast Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 930, as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Part 930 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Board locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the production area, and a public member.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects 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.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order provisions now in effect, free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries for the 2023-24 crop year. This rule establishes free and restricted percentages for the 2023-24 crop year, beginning July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the marketing order, any provision of the marketing order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the marketing order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the marketing order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2023-24 crop which may be handled at 94 percent free and 6 percent restricted. The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) has determined that designating free and restricted percentages of tart cherries for the 2023-24 crop year would effectuate the declared policy of the Act to stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. These recommendations were made by the Board at a meeting on September 14, 2023, and reaffirmed at a meeting on December 14, 2023.
Section 930.51(a) provides the Secretary authority to regulate volume by designating free and restricted percentages for any tart cherries acquired by handlers in a given crop year. Section 930.50 prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply based on sales history and for calculating these free and restricted percentages. Free percentage volume may be shipped to any market, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary reserve, or be diverted, or used for exempt purposes as prescribed in §§ 930.159 and 930.162. Exempt
Under § 930.52, only districts in which the average annual production of cherries over the prior three years has exceeded six million pounds are subject to volume regulation, and any district producing a crop that is less than 50 percent of its annual average processed production in the previous five years would be exempt from any volume regulation. The regulated districts for the 2023-24 crop year are: District 1—Northern Michigan; District 2—Central Michigan; District 3—Southern Michigan; District 4—New York; District 7—Utah; District 8—Washington; and District 9—Wisconsin. Districts 5 and 6 (Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively) will not be regulated for the 2023-24 season.
Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable despite the variance in production volume that industry may experience from year to year. Additionally, once processed, tart cherries can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year, further impacting supply. The Board is aware of this economic relationship and focuses on using the volume control provisions in the marketing order to balance supply and demand to stabilize industry returns.
Pursuant to § 930.50, the Board meets on or about July 1 to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts, and market conditions for the upcoming season and, if necessary, to recommend preliminary free and restricted percentages if anticipated supply exceeds demand. After harvest is complete, but no later than September 15, the Board meets again to update its calculations using actual production data, consider any necessary adjustments to the preliminary percentages, and determine if final free and restricted percentages should be recommended to the Secretary.
The Board uses sales history, inventory, and production data to determine whether a surplus exists and how much volume should be restricted to maintain optimum supply. The optimum supply represents the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale in the coming crop year. Optimum supply is defined as the average free sales of the prior three years plus desirable carry-out inventory. Desirable carry-out is the amount of fruit needed by the industry to be carried into the succeeding crop year to meet market demand until the new crop is available. Desirable carry-out is recommended by the Board after considering market circumstances and needs. Section 930.151(b) specifies that desirable carry-out can range from zero to a maximum of 100 million pounds.
In addition, § 930.50(g) specifies that in years when restricted percentages are established, the Board shall make available tonnage equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years for market expansion. This requirement is in USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (
After the Board determines the optimum supply, desirable carry-out, and market growth factor, it must examine the current year's available volume to determine whether an oversupply might occur. Available volume includes carry-in inventory (any inventory available at the beginning of the season) along with that season's production. If production plus the carry-in inventory is greater than the optimum supply (3-year sales average plus the targeted carry-out), then the difference is considered surplus. The ten percent market expansion factor and any economic adjustments recommended by the Board are then subtracted from this surplus number to arrive at an adjusted surplus. This adjusted surplus tonnage is divided by the sum of production in the regulated districts to reach a restricted percentage. This percentage must be held in reserve or used for approved diversion activities, such as exports, new products, or new market activities.
The Board met on June 22, 2023, and computed an optimum supply of 279.2 million pounds for the 2023-24 crop year using the average of free sales for the three previous seasons plus the desirable carry-out. To determine the carry-out figure, the Board discussed a range of alternatives. One member recommended a carry-out value of 85 million pounds, noting he did not think 100 million pounds was necessary to keep the markets supplied. Another member suggested a 70-million-pound carry-out and stated the industry does not need all those cherries in inventory and there will be fewer growers in the future if the market is oversupplied. Other members were concerned that 70 million pounds was too low to satisfy the demand prior to the new crop being available. Discussion also included that the carryover should be enough to supply the needs of the industry in case of a disaster and that the carryover should also reflect the increased number of tart cherry products now supplied to the market. Other members noted that more supply is also needed due to new food safety requirements being implemented. After considering the alternatives, the Board determined a carry-out of 85 million pounds will be enough to supply the industry's needs at the beginning of the next season.
The Board subtracted the carry-in inventory available on June 1 of 137.2 million pounds from the optimum supply to calculate the production quantity needed from the 2023-24 crop to meet optimum supply. This number, 142 million pounds, was subtracted from the Board's estimated 2023-24 total production of 175.2 million pounds (from regulated and unregulated districts) to calculate a surplus of 33.2 million pounds of tart cherries. The Board also complied with the market expansion factor requirement by removing 19.4 million pounds (average sales for prior three years of 194.2 million times 10 percent) from the surplus. The adjusted surplus of 13.8 million pounds was then divided by the expected production in the regulated districts (173.5 million pounds) to reach a preliminary restricted percentage of 8 percent for the 2023-24 crop year.
The Board then discussed whether this calculation would supply enough cherries to grow sales and fulfill orders that have not yet shipped. Some members stated that the Board should account for some large late season demand purchases by the USDA, which should account for approximately 26 million pounds raw product equivalent. After discussing multiple motions for an economic adjustment ranging from 0 to 26 million pounds, the Board did not recommend a preliminary economic adjustment at the June meeting. Without an economic adjustment, the preliminary restricted percentage remained at 8 percent. With this relatively small restriction, the Board did not anticipate significant orchard diversion.
The Board met again on September 14, 2023, to consider final volume regulation percentages for the 2023-24 season. The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the supply and demand information available in September.
The total production for the 2023-24 season reported at the September meeting was 202.7 million pounds. This exceeded the Board's June production estimate by 27.5 million pounds. In addition, growers diverted 6.86 million pounds in the orchard, lowering the available production for market. As a result, 195.8 million pounds of production will be available to the market, 193.4 million pounds of which are in the districts subject to volume regulation. The Board accounted for the recommended desirable carry-out and economic adjustment, as well as the market growth factor, and recalculated the restricted percentage using the actual production numbers.
The Board subtracted the carry-in figure used in June of 137.2 million pounds, from the optimum supply of 279.2 million pounds to determine 142 million pounds of 2023-24 production would be necessary to reach optimum supply. The Board subtracted the 142 million pounds from the actual production of 202.7 million pounds, resulting in a surplus of 60.7 million pounds of tart cherries.
At its June meeting, the Board did not recommend making an economic adjustment of the optimum supply calculation to address unexpected factors that could have a bearing on the marketing of tart cherries. However, in September, following another discussion of a late seasonal purchase made by USDA, and the possible impact on the available supply, the Board recommended an economic adjustment of 30 million pounds to ensure sufficient inventory was available to meet demand.
The Board also discussed the impact of imported tart cherries on the domestic market. Imports have been an important topic of discussion for the Board when considering preliminary and final volume recommendations since the demand for tart cherries is inelastic. In June, the Board received a presentation indicating tart cherry imports were only approximately
The calculated surplus was reduced by subtracting the economic adjustment of 30 million pounds from the September meeting and the market growth factor of 19.4 million pounds, resulting in an adjusted surplus of 11.25 million pounds. The Board then divided the adjusted surplus by the available production of 193.4 million pounds (202.66 million pounds minus 6.86 million pounds of in-orchard diversion minus 2.44 million pounds from unregulated districts) in the regulated districts to calculate a restricted percentage of 5.8 percent. The Board rounded this number up, and recommended a 6 percent restriction (11.6 million pounds) with a corresponding free percentage of 94 percent (181.8 million pounds) in the regulated districts for the 2023-24 crop year, as outlined in the following table from the September meeting:
The final restriction of 6 percent is lower than the preliminary restriction percentage of 8 percent. The change is due to the increase in production of 27.5 million pounds more in total production above the June estimate, and the 30-million-pound economic adjustment the Board made in September. The desired carry-out remained the same at 85 million pounds.
After the September meeting, industry reported an additional 3.24 million pounds of production that was not accounted for at the September meeting. The Board met again on December 14, 2023, and reviewed the impact of this additional production on the free and restricted percentages recommended at the September meeting. The inclusion of the additional 3.24 million pounds would increase the surplus from approximately 60.7 to 63.9 million pounds. Given no further changes to the other numbers incorporated in the September calculation, this surplus change would increase the restricted percentage to 7.4 percent.
The Board discussed maintaining the final restriction at 6 percent as recommended in September. Members recognized that this would relieve the industry from the burden of having to meet an increased reserve requirement of 1.4 percent more (7.4%−6% = 1.4%). Since the industry makes business decisions based on the June estimates and the final recommendation from September, a late season increase to the reserve requirement could have a negative impact on some industry members. After discussing the possible
With these changes, the total production increased from 202.7 million pounds to 205.9 million pounds and the surplus rose to 63.9 million pounds. The economic adjustment shifted from 30 million pounds to 33.24 million pounds, balancing out the additional surplus. Using the new production number and the revised economic adjustment to recalculate the restricted percentage, and rounding up, results in a 6 percent restriction percentage as recommended at the September meeting, as outlined in the following table from the December meeting:
Establishing free and restricted percentages is an attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Restricted percentages have benefited grower returns and helped stabilize the market as compared to those seasons prior to the implementation of the Order. The Board, based on its discussion of this issue and the results of the above calculations, believes the available information indicates a restricted percentage should be established for the 2023-24 crop year to avoid oversupplying the market with tart cherries.
Consequently, the Board recommended final percentages of 94 percent free and 6 percent restricted by a vote of 12 in favor, and 4 opposed on September 14, 2023, but later unanimously recommended the same percentages at the meeting on December 14, 2023. The Board could meet during the crop year, and if conditions so warranted, recommend the release of additional volume. The Secretary finds, from the recommendation and supporting information supplied by the Board, that designating final percentages of 94 percent free and 6 percent restricted tends to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, and so designates these percentages.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 400 growers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 30 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural growers of tart cherries as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.5 million (NAICS code—111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming), and small agricultural service firms, including handlers, were defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34 million (NAICS code 11514, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).
According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the 2022-2023 season average grower price for tart cherries utilized for processing was approximately $0.218 per pound. With total utilization for processing at 241.6 million pounds for the 2022-23 season, the total 2022-23 value of the crop utilized for processing is estimated at $52.7 million. Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of growers (400) yields an estimated average annual receipts per grower of approximately $132,000. This is well below the $3.5 million SBA threshold for small growers.
An estimate of the season average price per pound received by handlers for processed tart cherries was derived from USDA's purchases of dried tart cherries for feeding programs in 2023, which had an average price of $4.72 per pound. The dried cherry price was converted to a raw product equivalent price of $0.94 per pound at an industry recognized ratio of five to one. Based on utilization, this price represents a good estimate of the price for processed cherries. Multiplying this price by total
The tart cherry industry in the United States is characterized by wide annual fluctuations in production. According to NASS, the pounds of tart cherry production utilized for processing for the years 2019 through 2022 were 234 million, 138 million, 171 million, and 241 million, respectively. Because of these fluctuations, supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely in balance.
Demand for tart cherries is inelastic, meaning changes in price have a minimal effect on total sales volume. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply, and grower prices vary widely in response to the large swings in annual supply. Grower prices per pound for processed utilization have ranged from a low of $0.07 in 1987 to a high of $0.59 per pound in 2012 when a weather event substantially reduced supply. Grower prices per pound for processed utilization over the most recent three years for which data is available (2020 through 2022) were $0.38, $0.50, and $0.22, respectively.
Because of this relationship between supply and price, oversupplying the market with tart cherries would have a sharp negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns. Aware of this economic relationship, the Board focuses on using the volume control authority in the Order to align supply with demand and stabilize industry returns. This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted percentages to bring supply and demand into balance. Free percentage cherries can be marketed by handlers to any outlet, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in reserve, diverted, or used for exempted purposes.
This rule establishes 2023-24 crop year percentages of 94 percent free and 6 percent restricted. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. The rule regulates tart cherries handled in Michigan, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and New York. The authority for this action is provided in §§ 930.50, 930.51(a), and 930.52. The Board recommended this action at meetings on September 14, 2023, and December 14, 2023.
This action will result in some fruit being diverted from the primary domestic markets as authorized in the Order's marketing policy in § 930.50. However, as mentioned earlier, the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (
In addition, there are secondary uses available for restricted fruit, including the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and being placed in reserve. While these alternatives may provide different levels of return than the sales to primary markets, they play an important role for the industry. The areas of new products, new markets, and the development of export markets utilize restricted fruit to develop and expand the markets for tart cherries.
Placing tart cherries into reserves is also a key part of balancing supply and demand. Although handlers bear the handling and storage costs for fruit in reserve, reserves stored in large crop years can be used to supplement supplies in short crop years. The reserves help the industry to mitigate the impact of oversupply in large crop years, while allowing the industry to supply markets in years when production falls below demand. During the 2020-21 season, the Board voted to release all fruit in the reserve into the primary market to increase supply.
In considering the establishment of free and restricted percentages, the Board recommended a carry-out of 85 million pounds to help ensure sufficient product to meet demand until availability of the following year's crop and to allow for inventory to span the lead-time on processing new products. The Board also recommended a demand adjustment of 33.24 million pounds. These numbers, along with carry-in, production in the unregulated districts, and free tonnage from the regulated districts, will make 324.4 million pounds of fruit available for the domestic market. This amount exceeds the 317.4 million pounds available in the previous season when the industry did not regulate the volume on the market. Even with the recommended restriction, the domestic market will have an ample supply of tart cherries. Further, should marketing conditions change, and market demand exceed the existing supplies, the Board could meet and recommend the release of additional reserves up to 11.8 million pounds of tart cherries. Consequently, it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or handlers.
While this action may result in some additional costs to the industry, these costs are outweighed by the benefits. The purpose of setting restricted percentages is to attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market (domestic) is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Without volume control, the primary market would likely be oversupplied, resulting in lower grower prices.
An AMS econometric model used to assess the impact volume control has on the price growers receive for their product estimated that volume control should have a positive impact on grower returns for this crop year. With volume control, grower prices are estimated to be about nine tenths of a cent higher than without restrictions. In addition, absent volume control, the industry could start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories, which in turn, could have a depressing effect on grower prices.
Retail demand is assumed to be inelastic, which indicates changes in price do not result in significant changes in the quantity demanded. Consumer prices largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Therefore, this action should have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in retail sales.
The free and restricted percentages established by this final rule will provide the market with optimum supply and apply uniformly to all regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. As the restriction represents a percentage of a handler's volume, the costs, when applicable, are proportionate and should not place an extra burden on small entities as compared to large entities.
The stabilizing effects of this rule will benefit all handlers by helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all growers and handlers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their tart cherries will generate. Growers and
As noted earlier, the Board discussed several carry-out inventory alternatives, ranging from 70 million pounds to 100 million pounds. The Board noted if the carry-out number was too large, it could have a negative impact on grower returns, and if it was too small, it could negatively impact the supply processors need before the harvest next season. After consideration of the alternatives, the Board recommended a carry-out of 85 million pounds.
The Board also weighed alternatives when discussing the economic adjustment. At its June meeting, the Board did not recommend making an economic adjustment after considering alternatives that included making no economic adjustment or an economic adjustment of 26 million pounds. However, in September, the Board revisited the issue and after discussion, and considering the impact of purchases by the USDA on available supply, recommended an economic adjustment of 30 million pounds. Additionally, the Board met again on December 14, 2023, and unanimously recommended adding another 3.24 million pounds to the economic adjustment to reflect the additional production volume.
Given the concerns with regulation expressed by Board members and industry members in attendance, the Board also considered recommending no volume regulation. However, after considering the larger than expected harvest and the carry-in inventory adding to the available supply, the industry recommended a six percent restriction to the 2023-24 crop. Thus, the alternatives were rejected.
The Board's meetings were widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June, September, and December meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. No changes are necessary in those requirements as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Board and other available information, USDA has determined that this rule is consistent with and will effectuate the policy of the Act.
Cherries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agriculture Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 930 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
The percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year beginning on July 1, 2023, which shall be free and restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage, 94 percent and restricted percentage, 6 percent.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance dates.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published a direct final rule to establish new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products in the
The effective date of June 13, 2024, for the direct final rule published on February 14, 2024 (89 FR 11434) is confirmed. Compliance with the standards established in the direct final rule will be required on January 31, 2028.
The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email: Peter
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the
After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and the DFR remains effective. Although not required under EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE typically publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (“NAECA”), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a final rule on September 8, 1998 (“September 1998 Final Rule”), which found that no standards were justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating at that time that elimination of standing pilot lights for gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord was economically justified, DOE did not include amended standards for conventional gas cooking products in the September 1998 Final Rule. 63 FR 48038, 48039-48040.
For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published a final rule on April 8, 2009 (“April 2009 Final Rule”) amending the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning pilot lights for all gas cooking products (
On August 22, 2022, DOE published a final rule establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, “Uniform Test Method for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.” On February 1, 2023, DOE published a supplementary NOPR (“February 2023 SNOPR”) proposing to establish new and amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, consisting of design requirements for conventional ovens and a maximum integrated annual energy consumer (“IAEC”) levels for electric and gas cooking tops, as measured according to the newly established appendix I1 test procedure and expressed in kilowatt-hours (“kWh”) per year for electric cooking tops and kilo-British thermal
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (“Joint Agreement”) recommending standards for consumer conventional cooking products that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.
After carefully considering the recommended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products in the Joint Agreement, DOE determined that these recommendations were in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule and published a direct final rule on February 14, 2024 (“February 2024 Direct Final Rule”). 89 FR 11434. DOE evaluated whether the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found that the recommended standard levels would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
The standards adopted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule apply to product classes listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 and that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2028. The February 2024 Direct Final Rule provides a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the new and amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA.
As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR proposing the identical standard levels contained in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 11548. DOE considered whether any adverse comment received during the 110-day comment period following the publication of the February 2024 Direct Final Rule provided a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).
As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
DOE received comments in response to the February 2024 Direct Final Rule from the interested parties listed in Table III.1.
A parenthetical reference at
DOE received comments from individual commenters who expressed support for the standards promulgated in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Ravnitzky, No. 12826 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 12827 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 12828 at p. 1; Shimada, No. 12829 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 12830 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 12833 at p. 1)
Butt commented that the new and amended standards represent a critical step forward in advancing energy efficiency and environmental sustainability. (Butt, No. 12837 at p. 10)
AHAM supported the February 2024 Direct Final Rule for consumer conventional cooking products because it establishes standards that are consistent with recommendations submitted in the Joint Agreement. (AHAM, No. 12845 at pp. 1-2) ASAP
NPGA also commented in support of the Joint Agreement that led to the February 2024 Direct Final Rule and commended the parties for their efforts to achieve it. (NPGA, No. 12835 at p. 2) APGA commented that it is pleased the rulemaking ensures that consumers can continue to have access to the vast majority of gas-fired cooking products currently available on the market today. APGA also urged DOE to not use this rulemaking as precedent for future energy conservation standards rulemakings, as APGA had a few concerns regarding the underlying analysis. (APGA, No. 12839 at p. 2)
CFA
Rep. Bice submitted a comment in opposition to the standards as recommended by the Joint Agreement and adopted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Rep. Bice, No. 12831 at p. 1)
ALC opposed the new and amended standards on the basis that the standards represent an aggressive Federal effort to micromanage the lives of Americans and that DOE lacks the constitutional and statutory authority to do so. (ALC, No. 12834 at pp. 1-2)
The AGs of NE
CEI opposed the February 2024 Direct Final Rule and stated that it should be withdrawn. (CEI, No. 12844 at p. 1)
Butt listed several alternative approaches to energy conservation that might ease the burden on manufacturers and consumers while fulfilling DOE's emission reduction goals. (Butt, No. 12837 at pp. 3, 5-6, 9-10)
As required by Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, DOE conducted a regulatory impact analysis (“RIA”) to identify major alternatives to standards that represent feasible policy options to reduce energy consumption of consumer conventional cooking products. 89 FR 11502. Notwithstanding the requirements of E.O. 12866, as discussed, DOE is required by EPCA to establish or amend standards for consumer conventional cooking products that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
EPCA, as codified, contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1))
The AGs of UT and MT commented that the fact the Joint Agreement is contingent upon other parts being implemented conflicts with the anti-backsliding provision of EPCA.
DOE addressed this issue in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. As discussed there, the Joint Agreement was contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards. In other words, DOE could not pick and choose which recommendations in the Joint Agreement to implement.
As discussed previously, DOE may not prescribe an amended standard that increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the energy efficiency of a covered product. Further, EPCA defines the term “energy use” to mean the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, determined in accordance with test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) EPCA similarly defines “energy efficiency” to mean the ratio of the useful output of services from a consumer product to the energy use [as that term is defined] of such product, determined in accordance with test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5)) Neither the energy use nor the energy efficiency of a product, as those terms are defined in EPCA, is dependent upon the lifespan of the product. As a result, product lifespan has no effect on whether an amended standard violates the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
As product lifespan does not affect energy use or energy efficiency as defined in EPCA, DOE has determined that the comment provided by the AGs of UT and MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the February 2024 Direct Final Rule.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional cooking products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In deciding whether a
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
DOE received several comments on its determination of economic justification under the statutory criteria.
Butt commented with a list of various manufacturer and consumer impacts that the commenter asserted were not accounted for in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, including: price increases and potential demand decreases, necessity and increased cost of technological innovation, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, potential need for production and product offering adjustments, changes in market competition, higher up-front costs for energy-efficient consumer cooking products with the tradeoff of energy savings along with food and cooking quality difference between gas and electric. (Butt, No. 12837 at pp. 8-9)
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, DOE affirms that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule accounted for the commenter's listed impacts in its consideration of the seven statutory criteria as required by EPCA.
Rep. Bice asserted that increased standards will lead to increased production costs for manufacturers, which will subsequently lead to increased costs to consumers. Rep. Bice added that the adopted standards will limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and impose onerous regulations on American manufacturers, many of whom are small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 12831 at p. 1)
The AGs of NE
Butt commented that DOE's regulatory efforts may inadvertently lead to sectoral overregulation, wherein certain industries face disproportionate regulatory burdens. By focusing on specific sectors, DOE runs the risk of imposing excessive regulatory requirements that could stifle innovation, hinder economic growth, and impede market competitiveness. (Butt, No. 12837 at p. 2)
In addition, Butt commented that the fraction of consumers encountering a net life-cycle cost (“LCC”) is minimal, underscoring the equitable distribution of economic benefits. However, Butt also questioned the fairness of the rule given what the commenter characterized as a disparate impact on low-income households and households of color. (Id. at pp. 6-8)
DOE disagrees with the commenters' assessment of the impact of the adopted standard in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. DOE considered the impacts to manufacturers, including cumulative regulatory burden and the potential increase in manufacturing costs, in the manufacturing impact analysis in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 11434, 11489-11492, 11514-11522. At the adopted standard, DOE projects that 77 percent of electric smooth element cooking tops, 97 percent of gas cooking tops, 95 percent of electric ovens, and 96 percent of gas ovens will already meet or exceed the standards by the first year of compliance and, hence, will not lead to significantly increased production costs for manufacturers.
AHAM stated given the finalized standards levels and the fact that compliance timelines for cooking standards are no longer on the same timeline as several other products AHAM members make, cumulative regulatory burden is significantly reduced. AHAM further stated that cost burdens to manufacturers, and ultimately consumers, have been mitigated. (AHAM, No. 12845 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM commented that the recommended standards are economically justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and will not result in lessening of utility, reliability, performance or availability of the cooking products considered under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). AHAM commented that under the standards adopted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, less than 1 percent of consumers will experience a net cost overall, and the percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost due to standards for gas products decreased compared to the previously proposed standards. In addition, AHAM noted that manufacturer costs to comply with the final standard are less under the February 2024 Direct Final Rule than under the previously proposed standards. (
CFA
The February 2024 Direct Final Rule did consider the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard (42 U.S.C. 4296(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)), and DOE has determined that the comments provided by Butt, the AGs of NE
The AGs of UT and MT stated that DOE's reliance on 2022 data for energy
DOE contends that
Therefore, the February 2024 Direct Final Rule did take into account energy price variability in its analysis, and DOE has determined that the comment provided by the AGs of UT and MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the February 2024 Direct Final Rule.
The AGs of UT and MT stated that DOE acknowledges but disregards consumer preference and assumes consumers are ignorant. The AGs of UT and MT stated that DOE ignores the cost of transitioning to a different energy source. The AGs of UT and MT attached studies demonstrating consumer preference for product lifetime over energy consumption, and the AGs of UT and MT commented that these longer-life appliances may use less energy over the entire life cycle and be a lower cost to the consumer, yet DOE did not address those issues. (AGs of UT and MT, No. 12841 at p. 2)
DOE did not disregard consumer preference but rather noted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off up-front costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. 89 FR 11434, 11534. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements, as the AGs of UT and MT alleged in their comment. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant trade-offs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers).
Potential changes in the benefits and costs associated with a standard due to changes in consumer purchase decisions were included in the analysis for the February 2024 Direct Final Rule in two ways.
Further, the AGs of UT and MT stated that the reliability of products affected by the rulemaking will decrease due to complexity increases, which the commenters asserted is supported by engineering facts illustrated in a document attached to their comment, yet DOE does not address this issue. The AGs of UT and MT also commented that complexity increases will lead to less economic viability of repair, which is not reflected in DOE's assumption that the rulemaking will have no impact on lifespan. The AGs of UT and MT commented that DOE disregards the fact that reliability can be increased by lightening the electrical, mechanical, thermal, and other conditions of operation of the components, which tends to decrease energy efficiency but results in less repair downtime and longer times before replacement and, therefore, decreased costs, as illustrated in attached documents. (AGs of UT and MT, No. 12841 at pp. 3-4)
AHAM commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule addresses AHAM's key concerns with the February 2023 SNOPR. AHAM stated that the finalized energy conservation standards levels do not favor electric over gas cooktops and the essential consumer utilities for gas (and electric) cooktops are preserved. (AHAM, No. 12845 at pp. 1-2) AHAM added that the technology options DOE identified for meeting the standard levels in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule are established technologies used in the market today and do not negatively impact product reliability. (
In contrast to the comment from the AGs of UT and MT and as noted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into consideration the cost of repair and included higher repair costs for more efficient products when supported by available data.
DOE further notes that the lifetime distribution used in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule is based on feedback from manufacturers. 89 FR 11434, 11477. DOE is unaware of data that suggests a different lifetime associated with the technology options considered in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, and no such data was provided by stakeholders. In response to the
As discussed in in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into account product reliability, lifetimes, and cost of repair when considering the LCC of more efficient products when supported by available data.
The AGs of UT and MT stated their belief that GHG emissions and climate change impacts should not be part of EPCA rulemakings, but given their inclusion, DOE must consider them throughout the entire life cycle of the product, including manufacturing and potential reductions in lifespan due to increased complexity. The AGs of UT and MT commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule failed to adequately address these full life cycle impacts. (AGs of UT and MT, No. 12841 at p. 4)
As previously stated in section III.B of this document, the comment from the AGs of UT and MT points to a statement made to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy to indicate that 40 to 60 percent of the carbon footprint for many consumer products can be attributed to the supply chain.
The AGs of UT and MT stated that the Interagency Working Group's (“IWG's”) SC-GHG based on global impacts is inconsistent with EPCA's requirements for standards to consider economic implications to U.S. consumers. The AGs of UT and MT claimed that DOE erroneously appears to assume that all the benefits accrue to U.S. citizens, despite using global values. The AGs of UT and MT cited the case of
DOE reiterates its view that the environmental and public health benefits associated with more efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate change, are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. (
The AGs of UT and MT stated the monetized GHG benefits largely accrue centuries in the future, well beyond the rulemaking analysis period. Furthermore, the AGs of UT and MT stated that DOE improperly mixed discount rates in its cost-benefit analysis. (AGs of UT and MT, No. 12841 at p. 4)
ALC stated similar concerns that IWG estimates for the SC-GHG are based on “flawed policy choices,” relying on discount rates that have a large influence on the present value of future damages far beyond the rulemaking analysis period. (ALC, No. 12834 at p. 6)
DOE's February 2024 Direct Final Rule analysis considers the costs and benefits associated with 30 years of shipments of a covered product. Because a portion of products shipped within this 30-year period continue to operate beyond 30 years, DOE accounts for energy cost savings and reductions in emissions until all products shipped within the 30-year period are retired. 89 FR 11434, 11499. In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, which remain in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change for many decades, the benefits of reductions in emissions likewise occur over a lengthy period; to not include such benefits would be inappropriate.
With regards to discount rates used, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context and recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates. With regards to mixing discount rates, DOE consulted the National Academies' 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can “be combined in RIAs with other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount rates.” The National Academies reviewed several options, including “presenting
Because it issued this DFR prior to making that preliminary determination, DOE estimated the climate benefits of the standards adopted in this rule using the IWG's SC-GHG estimates. As noted in the text, DOE's decision to adopt the DFR's standards did not depend on the cost of greenhouse gasses; nor would the decision change based on a revised estimate of the cost of greenhouse gasses.
ALC commented that because DOE cannot conclude that the new standards are economically justified under the statutory factors, DOE instead relies on the non-statutory and discredited SC-GHG estimates and thereby skews the economic analysis it is required to perform under EPCA. ALC claimed that DOE's reliance on SC-GHG estimates based on global damages conflicts with EPCA's statutory mandate to consider the need for national energy conservation under 42 U.S.C. 6925 (o)(2)(B)(i)(II). ALC stated that according to the Trump Administration, the actual social cost of carbon is seven times less than the SC-GHG estimates. ALC commented that DOE should not be permitted to use the IWG estimates in formulating new standards. (ALC, No. 12834 at pp. 2, 5-6)
ALC commented that DOE cannot avoid judicial review by declaring that it would reach the same conclusion presented in the rulemaking in the absence of the SC-GHG; ALC further commented that this rulemaking represents another attempt by the Biden Administration to avoid judicial review by claiming that the estimates are not outcome determinative. (
In response and as stated in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE notes that it would have reached the same conclusion that the adopted standard levels were economically justified without considering the SC-GHG because the average LCC savings for all product classes is positive, a shipment-weighted 0 percent of consumers would experience a net cost, and the NPV for consumer benefits is positive using both the 3-percent and the 7-percent discount rate. 89 FR 11434, 11498, 11538.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
APGA urged DOE not to use this rulemaking as a precedent for future energy conservation standards. APGA expressed concern with the cost-saving justification for the final standards, commenting that DOE's estimated savings are not sufficient to justify the rulemaking under EPCA. APGA commented that, using DOE's calculations and the average 14.5-year lifetime of a gas-fired consumer conventional cooking product, the average savings for customers would only be $3.09 over the life of the appliance. APGA commented that such an insignificant amount of savings over this timeframe does not seem to warrant a new standard under EPCA, and APGA is concerned that DOE is using what APGA asserted is miniscule savings to demonstrate a sufficient cost savings justification for a new standard. (APGA, No. 12839 at pp. 2-3)
CEI commented that by addressing stakeholders' concerns about reducing performance and choice, DOE has reduced the proposed rule's already-modest energy savings. CEI commented that EPCA expressly forbids promulgating efficiency standards that fail to result in significant conservation of energy and, as a result, the proper course of action would be for DOE to withdraw both the cooking products February 2024 Direct Final Rule and proposed rule. (CEI, No. 12844 at p. 3)
CEI commented that EPCA does not prioritize efficiency above all else in the standards-setting process; rather, any rule is prohibited if the Secretary determines said rule “will not result in significant conservation of energy.” CEI added that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule saves so little energy that it can be considered arbitrary and capricious. CEI commented that, as a result of the less-stringent standards in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule (compared to the proposed rule), the savings are now estimated by DOE to be $3.09 over the 14.5-year average lifespan of a gas cooktop, or 21 cents per year. (
CEI commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule demonstrates that the only way to avoid an energy efficiency standard that compromises gas stove performance and features is to set one so weak that the consumer savings become insignificant. CEI commented that EPCA fully contemplates—and indeed requires—that some appliances would not be subject to energy use limits, and this should include consumer conventional cooking products. CEI commented that because energy savings are trivial and regulatory overreach threatens to harm the interests of consumers, the February 2024 Direct Final Rule should be withdrawn. (
Despite supporting the Joint Agreement, NPGA reiterated a previous comment that this rulemaking does not satisfy the threshold for significant energy savings at either the proposed or finalized standards. (NPGA, No. 12835 at pp. 1-2)
Butt commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule is projected to yield substantial energy savings. Butt subsequently stated that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule amounts to a 2% reduction in energy consumption relative to conventional product usage. Butt noted that this minimal rate would not implicitly justify the need for a reduction in energy consumption. Butt recommended that DOE consider shifting regulation focus to other sectors that have higher relative emissions such as refrigeration or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”). (Butt, No. 12837 at pp. 4-7)
AHAM commented that it finds DOE has satisfied all EPCA criteria for issuing a February 2024 Direct Final Rule because the recommended energy conservation standards were designed by the Joint Stakeholders (including manufacturers of various sizes as well as consumer, environmental, and efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and some States) to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and because DOE issued a February 2024 Direct Final Rule together with a proposed rule identical to the standard established in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule and allowed 110 days for public comment, which is consistent with EPCA requirements. (AHAM, No. 12845 at pp. 8-10)
As discussed, pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must, among other criteria, be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). As noted in
As discussed in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a significant amount of energy. 89 FR 11434, 11437-11441. Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods.
Relative to the case without new and amended standards, the lifetime, FFC energy savings for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.22 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads. This is equivalent to the primary annual energy use of 1.4 million homes. Further, during the same analysis period, the adopted standards for consumer conventional cooking products are projected to reduce emissions by 3.99 million metric tons
DOE also estimates the cumulative monetary value of the climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases and the money value of the health benefits from the reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions. The climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.22 billion. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.42 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE determined in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule that the energy savings from the adopted standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
APGA expressed concern that the rulemaking does not appear to save any more energy than a previous iteration of the rule for which DOE deemed similarly minimal energy savings insufficient to dictate a new ruling. APGA asserted that with the last iteration of this rule in 2009, DOE decided not to set a new standard, citing a lack of significant conservation of energy for gas cooktops. APGA commented it is therefore concerned that DOE is planning to set a new standard based on the same minimal energy conservation that previously did not warrant a new standard in 2009. (APGA, No. 12839 at p. 3)
DOE re-iterates that the significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. 89 FR 11434, 11441. Contrary to APGA's assertions, DOE did in fact amend the energy conservation standards in the April 2009 Final Rule by prohibiting the use of constant burning pilot lights for all gas cooking products manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. DOE further stated in the April 2009 Final Rule that the estimated energy savings at each of the standard levels considered for cooking products indicate that the energy savings each would achieve are nontrivial, and therefore, DOE considered these savings “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.
EPCA specifies the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
The AGs of NE
Rep. Bice asserted that the adopted standards will limit consumer choice. (Rep. Bice, No. 12831 at p. 1)
ALC commented that, as noted by CEI, the new and amended standards would unlawfully eliminate desired features that are on the market and that DOE did not adequately respond to the core of CEI's argument regarding desired features such as the maximum heat output of an HIR burner. ALC commented that among the more troublesome aspects of the rulemaking is the fact that DOE does not dispute that the new rule will likely regulate gas stoves with multiple HIR burners out of existence, and DOE does not attempt to show that any efficacious substitutes exist on the market; ALC commented that DOE therefore does not fulfill its statutory burden to carefully assess any
DOE determined that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule would not result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the same as those currently available in the United States. 89 FR 11434, 11524-11530. AHAM noted that the energy conservation standards adopted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule maintain important consumer features and utilities. (AHAM, No. 12845 at pp. 6-8)
As discussed, DOE specifically addressed the ability of consumer conventional cooking products to maintain certain features and functionalities. DOE stated in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule that the adopted standards would not preclude multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates or any combination of features mentioned by manufacturers, as demonstrated by products from multiple manufacturers in DOE's test sample. 89 FR 11434, 11524, 11526. AHAM noted that the energy conservation standards adopted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule maintain important consumer features and utilities. AHAM commented that DOE expanded the number of models with the consumer utilities AHAM identified in its testing, including 55 models of gas cooking tops with continuous cast-iron grates, which demonstrates a greater care for the features that consumers value. AHAM added that DOE's analysis shows that 35 gas units with at least two HIR cooking zones, or where the input rate is greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h, meet the finalized standard, thus preserving that key consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 12845 at pp. 6-7)
In response to ALC's claim that the standards in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule would reduce an HIR burner's maximum heat considerably, DOE reiterates that the highest input rate burners in its test sample (up to 25,000 Btu/h) meet the efficiency threshold corresponding to the finalized standard. 89 FR 11434, 11464.
The February 2024 Direct Final Rule evaluated whether the new and amended standards would result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the same as those currently available in the United States, and DOE has determined that the comments provided by the AGs of NE
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by DOE, may submit a joint recommendation to DOE for new or amended energy conservation standards.
The AGs of NE
The AGs of NE
The AGs of NE
The AGs of UT and MT agreed with the AGs of NE
The AGs of NE
In response to the comments regarding whether the Joint Agreement was submitted by persons fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) states that if the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) are met, the Secretary may issue a final rule that establishes an energy conservation standard “[o]n receipt of a statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(p))
As stated in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that this requirement was met. 89 FR 11434, 11446. The Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 19 manufacturers of the subject covered products—consumer conventional cooking products.
DOE has ample authority to accept a joint statement in these circumstances. EPCA does not require that the Joint Agreement be representative of
Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, EPCA does not include any requirement that “relevant points of view” must include politically opposite points of view. Rather, EPCA ensures a diversity of opinions and interests by requiring that parties that provide a joint agreement must be fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
Moreover, regardless of whether amended energy conservation standards are recommended as part of a joint agreement or proposed by DOE, the standards have to satisfy the same criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Thus, once DOE has determined that a joint agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE then determines whether the joint agreement satisfies the relevant statutory criteria. As a result, in evaluating whether comments provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing a direct final rule, it is the substance of the comments, not the number of stakeholders that submit statements in favor of, or opposed to, the joint agreement, that determines whether a rule should be withdrawn.
DOE also finds meritless the contention that the Joint Agreement parties are not competent to present a statement for the purposes of section 6295(p). Contrary to the characterizations by the AGs of NE
In a follow-up letter from the parties to the Joint Agreement, each organization provided a brief description of its background. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is a nonprofit research organization and its independent analysis advances investments, programs, and behaviors that use energy more effectively and help build an equitable clean energy future. Alliance for Water Efficiency is a nonprofit dedicated to efficiency and sustainable use of water that provides a forum for collaboration around policy, information sharing, research, education, and stakeholder engagement. ASAP organizes and leads a broad-based coalition effort that works to advance new appliance, equipment, and lighting standards that cut emissions that contribute to climate change and other environmental and public health harms, save water, and reduce economic and environmental burdens for low- and moderate-income households. AHAM represents more than 150 member companies that manufacture 90 percent of the major portable and floor care appliances shipped for sale in the United States. CFA is an association of more than 250 non-profit consumer and cooperative groups that advances the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education. Consumer Reports is a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit member organization that empowers and informs consumers, incentivizes corporations to act responsibly, and helps policymakers prioritize the rights and interests of consumers in order to shape a truly consumer-driven marketplace. Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization advocating to advance clean energy and combat climate change. National Consumer Law Center supports consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people in the United States through its expertise in policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training. National Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with expertise from lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is a collaboration of 140 utilities and efficiency organizations working together to advance energy efficiency in the Northwest on behalf of more than 13 million consumers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company represents one of the largest combined gas and electric utilities in the Western United States, serving over 16 million customers across northern and central California.
Finally, DOE notes that it had no role in requesting that the parties to the Joint Agreement submit the Joint Agreement or in negotiating the terms of the Joint Agreement. As noted in the Joint Agreement itself, the parties accepted the agreement based on the totality of the agreement. DOE's participation was limited to evaluating the joint submission under the criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p).
Therefore, DOE reaffirms its determination that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view.
The AGs of NE
In response to the comments from the AGs of NE
Even though DOE was not required to consider comments from the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE did in fact consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained through the February 2023 SNOPR. This included the issues that the AGs of NE
In response to concerns about manufacturer supply chain, DOE noted in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule that 77 percent of electric smooth element cooking tops, 97 percent of gas cooking tops, 95 percent of electric ovens, and 96 percent of gas ovens will already meet or exceed the standards by the first year of compliance. 89 FR 11434, 11516. Given that a significant portion of the market already meets or exceeds the adopted standard, it is very unlikely that the adopted standard will impact the cooking product supply chain.
Additionally, in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE specifically addressed the ability of consumer conventional cooking products to maintain certain features and functionalities. 89 FR 11434, 11524. For example, DOE determined that the adopted standards would not preclude any combination of features mentioned by manufacturers, can be achieved by both standalone cooking tops and the cooking top portion of combined cooking products (
In the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered the impact on low-income households by performing a LCC subgroup analysis for low-income households. 89 FR 11434, 11488-11489. Notably, consistent with Joint Agreement, in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule DOE adopted a lower standard level for gas cooking tops than the level proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. DOE estimated that the lower standard level would result in 1 percent of low-income households experiencing a net cost due to the standard, compared with 18 percent at the proposed level in the February 2023 SNOPR. The adopted standard level for gas cooking tops in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule also reduced the estimated incremental increase in purchase price to $2.24, compared with $18.27 at the proposed standard level in the February 2023 SNOPR. Furthermore, in response to concerns that the adopted standard will impact housing costs, DOE notes that the estimated installed cost increase associated with the adopted standards is less than one percent relative to the cost of a baseline unit for all product classes and is unlikely to impact housing production or affordability.
The AGs of NE
ALC recommended that the rulemaking be reviewed in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)'s requirements; ALC added that the Administration's attempt to shield its regulations from review seeks to undermine that principle. ALC recommended that DOE reconsider the use of the standards and present rationale for its standards that satisfies the APA and respects the important role of judicial review. (ALC, No. 12834 at pp. 7-8) Similarly, the AGs of UT and MT expressed concerns about pretext and circumvention of the APA, and regarding DOE's conduct in this rulemaking and in recent litigation. (AGs of UT and MT, No. 12841 at pp. 1-2)
Butt commented that DOE's limited engagement with stakeholders raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the regulatory process. (Butt, No. 12837 at p. 2)
AHAM stated that interested parties have had ample opportunity to comment through the proposed and supplemental proposed rules, two notifications of data availability, and the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. AHAM noted that, in fact, the February 2024 Direct Final Rule process provided an extra 110 days for interested parties to review DOE's final rule and submit comments—which met EPCA requirements. (AHAM, No. 12845 at p. 5)
In response, DOE notes that Congress granted DOE the authority to issue energy conservation standards as direct final rules subject to certain conditions and procedural requirements. As discussed in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the adopted energy conservation standards as recommended in the Joint Agreement would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and provided supporting analysis. 89 FR 11434, 11446. DOE did not contribute to the development of the Joint Agreement. Rather, as provided in EPCA, DOE's role was to evaluate what was submitted and determine if meets the criteria for issuing a DFR. DOE strongly disagrees with the assertions that its actions here violate the APA or are otherwise improper.
Additionally, DOE notes it followed the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) to publish a direct final rule in the
ALC commented that Congress may only regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause when the activity substantially affects interstate commerce. ALC commented that in order to properly regulate the intrastate market for covered products, DOE must demonstrate that the intrastate activity substantially affects the interstate market for the covered appliances, which ALC asserted DOE has not done. Further, ALC disputes DOE's response to the Commerce Clause concerns in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. ALC states that Department's understanding of the Commerce Clause deviates from the Clause's original meaning and does so without addressing more recent Supreme Court decisions questioning such an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. ALC argues that DOE overreads Raich and places it in serious tension with precedents such as
As noted by ALC, DOE addressed Commerce Clause concerns in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule. Intrastate commerce involving a fungible commodity for which there is an established national market, such as consumer conventional cooking products, substantially affects interstate commerce. And, as the Supreme Court noted in
ALC commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule raises questions under the major questions doctrines. ALC asserted that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule imposes comprehensive design requirements that drastically affect consumer use and enjoyment and without a clear statement of authority the Department cannot exercise such control over “a significant portion of the American economy.”
DOE reiterates that it determined the February 2024 Direct Final Rule would not result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the same as those currently available in the United States. As discussed, DOE specifically addressed the ability of consumer conventional cooking products to maintain certain features and functionalities. DOE stated in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule that the adopted standards would not preclude multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates or any combination of features mentioned by manufacturers, as demonstrated by products from multiple manufacturers in DOE's test sample. 89 FR 11434, 11524, 11526. Further, contrary to ALC's assertion, DOE has very clear authority under EPCA to establish energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
ALC commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule raises questions under the nondelegation doctrine because DOE employs the social cost of greenhouse gases (“SC-GHG”) to justify the final rule yet cites no clear congressional statement of authority to rely on such a factor. Further the rule is legislative in nature because it formulates generally applicable rules of private conduct—an inherently legislative function. (ALC, No. 12834 at pp. 9-10)
First, as stated in the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the rule was economically justified without accounting for the social cost of greenhouse gases. 89 FR 11434, 11498. DOE, however, continues to believe that the environmental and public health benefits associated with more efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate change, are important factors to evaluate when considering the need for national energy conservation.
ALC commented that the February 2024 Direct Final Rule raises serious Federalism questions because it forecloses States from exercising their own judgment in an area traditionally reserved to their discretion, which upsets the balance between Federal and State powers. ALC commented that
As discussed in section II.A of the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE has clear authority to establish energy conservation standards for cooking products. 89 FR 11434, 11441-11443. Further, the preemptive effect of Federal energy conservation standards on State laws is clearly described in EPCA.
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 629(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with copies of the February 2024 Direct Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the February 2024 Direct Final Rule TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document.
In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its review, the direct final rule standards for consumer conventional cooking products are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule became effective on June 13, 2024. Compliance with these standards is required on and after January 31, 2028.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 2, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) published a final rule on April 26, 2024, to establish requirements for refunds and other protections for consumers of air travel. Subsequent to publication of that final rule, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Act) was signed into law on May 16, 2024. This final rule amends the Department's regulations, as updated by the April 26, 2024, final rule, consistent with the requirements of the Act.
This rule is effective August 12, 2024.
Clereece Kroha or Blane Workie, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone),
The purpose of this final rule is to amend the Department's regulations for consistency with the Act, Public Law 118-63.
The Act was signed into law on May 16, 2024, after publication in the
Subsection (a) of section 42305 requires that, for passengers
Subsection (f) specifies that an air carrier or foreign air carrier must consider a passenger to have requested a refund if one of the following criteria are met: (1) a flight is cancelled and the air carrier or foreign air carrier does not offer a passenger an alternative flight or any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation pursuant to subsection (c) of section 42305; (2) a passenger rejects the significantly delayed or changed flight, rebooking on an alternative flight, or any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation offered pursuant to subsection (c) of section 42305; or (3) a passenger does not respond to an offer of either of the following: (A) a significantly delayed or changed flight or an alternative flight and the flight departs without the passenger; or (B) a voucher, credit, or other form of compensation by the date on which the cancelled flight was scheduled to depart
Subsection (c) specifies the manner in which an air carrier or foreign air carrier could offer a voucher, credit, or other compensation as an explicit alternative to a refund. An air carrier or foreign air carrier can make such an offer only if the offer includes clear and conspicuous notice of the offer's terms and the passenger's right to a full refund. The alternative compensation must remain valid and redeemable for at least five years from the date of issuance and the recipient is notified of the expiration date. In addition, upon request of an individual who self-identifies as having a disability, the notice of the expiration date must be provided in an electronic format accessible to the recipient.
The Act also defined a “significantly changed or delayed flight” in subsection (d) of section 42305 as a flight to include, at a minimum, a flight where the passenger arrives at the passenger's destination airport 3 or more hours after the original scheduled arrival time for a domestic flight and 6 or more hours after the original scheduled arrival time for an international flight.
In subsection (b) of section 42305, the Act established requirements for the timing of the refunds required under subsection (a). Air carriers and foreign air carriers must issue refunds not later than 7 business days after the earliest date of the refund request, as specified in subsection (f), for tickets purchased with a credit card, and 20 days for tickets purchased with cash or another form of payment.
Subsection (e) of section 42305 requires that the Department issue a rule to apply refund requirements to ticket agents for cancelled or significantly delayed or changed flights within 1 year of the date of enactment of the Act. Subsection (e) further requires the Department to issue regulations requiring air carriers and foreign air carriers to promptly transfer funds to a ticket agent if the Secretary determines that the ticket agent is responsible for providing the refund and the ticket agent does not possess the passenger's funds. Refunds provided by ticket agents pursuant to the Department's regulations must comply with the timelines specified in subsection (b)—7 business days for credit card purchases and 20 days for cash purchases and purchases made using other forms of payment—and the requirements for alternatives to a refund specified in subsection (c)—clear and conspicuous notice of the terms of the offer and the right to a refund, an expiration date of no less than 5 years, and notification of the expiration date, including for passengers that self-identify as having a disability.
Subsection (g) of section 42305 requires air carriers and foreign air carriers to update their passenger notification systems to ensure passengers owed a refund are notified of that right.
In this final rule, the Department amends its regulations in 14 CFR parts 259, 260, and 399, as originally added or amended by the final rule published on April 26, 2024, for consistency with the provisions of the Act as described in the preceding paragraphs. The Department also satisfies the rulemaking requirements of subsection (e) of 49 U.S.C. 42305. The Department's April 2024 final rule meets the requirement of 42305(e)(1) for the Department to issue a final rule within 1 year of enactment applying refund requirements to ticket agents, and also includes the Department's determination of when a ticket agent is responsible for providing refunds.
Under the Act, the compliance and effective date for certain requirements relating to ticket refunds due to airline cancellations or significant change is May 16, 2024. Because those provisions are self-effectuating, the Department's expectation is that airlines comply with the provisions contained in the Act. Beyond those requirements that went into effect under the Act on May 16, 2024, this final rule does not change the compliance date of October 28, 2024, set forth in the Department's April 26 final rule for the requirements regarding ticket refunds due to airline cancellation or significant change, refunds of baggage fees for significantly delayed bags, and refunds of ancillary service fees when services are not provided. It also does not change the compliance date of April 25, 2025, set forth in the Department's April 26 final rule for the requirements regarding issuing travel credits or vouchers to passengers who are affected by a serious communicable disease.
The Department is issuing this rulemaking pursuant to authority granted in the Act, Public Law 118-63. Because the Department is codifying the requirements of the Act in this final rule, and exercising no discretion in so doing, the Department has determined that prior notice and comment are unnecessary, and there is good cause to find that this rule is not subject to the notice and comment requirements pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For these same reasons, the Department also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and make this regulation effective on August 12, 2024.
The final rule was determined not to be a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended by E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” The rule was therefore not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to E.O. 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601,
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This rule, in which the Department codifies requirements imposed by statute, does not include any provision that: (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because none of the provisions finalized in this rule would significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
This final rule does not impose any new collection of information that would require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The Department has determined that this final rule, in which the Department codifies requirements of the Act will not have an effect on the private sector that exceeds this threshold. As a result, the analytical requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this final rule.
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with Compliance with Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 (Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118- 5, div. B, title III) and OMB Memorandum (M-23-21) dated September 1, 2023, the Department has determined that this final rule is not subject to the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 because it will not increase direct spending beyond specified thresholds.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Signed in Washington, DC.
Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air carriers, Consumer protection.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends title 14 CFR chapter II as follows:
49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, 41708, 41712, 42301, and 42305.
49 U.S.C. 40101(a), 41702, 41712, and 42305.
The purpose of this part is to ensure that carriers promptly refund consumers for:
(a) Fees for ancillary services related to air travel that consumers paid for but were not provided;
(b) Fees to transport checked bags that are lost or significantly delayed; and
(c) Airfare including nonrefundable airfare for a flight that is cancelled or significantly changed where the consumer does not accept the significantly changed flight or rebooking on an alternative flight, or accept any voucher, credit, or other compensation offered by the carrier.
(1) The consumer is scheduled to depart from the origination airport three hours or more for domestic itineraries and six hours or more for international itineraries earlier than the original scheduled departure time;
(2) The consumer is scheduled to arrive at the destination airport three or more hours for domestic itineraries or six or more hours for international itineraries after the original scheduled arrival time;
(3) The consumer is scheduled to depart from a different origination airport or arrive at a different destination airport;
(4) The consumer is scheduled to travel on an itinerary with more connection points than that of the original itinerary;
(5) The consumer is downgraded to a lower class of service;
(6) The consumer who is an individual with a disability is scheduled to travel through one or more connecting airports different from the original itinerary; or
(7) The consumer who is an individual with a disability is scheduled to travel on substitute aircraft on which one or more accessibility features needed by the customer are unavailable.
(a)
(i) Fly on the significantly delayed or changed flight or accept rebooking on an alternative flight; or
(ii) Accept any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation offered by the air carrier or foreign air carrier pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(2)
(i) A flight is canceled and a consumer is not offered an alternative flight or any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation by the air carrier or foreign air carrier pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;
(ii) A consumer rejects the significantly delayed or changed flight, rebooking on an alternative flight, or any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation offered by the covered carrier pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section; or
(iii) A consumer does not respond to an offer of:
(A) A significantly delayed or changed flight or an alternative flight and the flight departs without the consumer; or
(B) A voucher, credit, or other form of compensation by the date on which the cancelled flight was scheduled to depart or the date that the significantly delayed or changed flight departs.
(b)
(1) The individual with a disability is downgraded to a lower class of service that results in one or more accessibility features needed by the individual becoming unavailable.
(2) The individual with a disability is scheduled to travel through one or more connecting airports that are different from the original itinerary.
(3) The individual with a disability is scheduled to travel on a substitute aircraft on which one or more accessibility features available on the original aircraft needed by the individual are unavailable.
(c)
(1) The offer includes a clear and conspicuous notice of—
(i) The terms of the offer as specified in § 260.8; and
(ii) The consumer's right to a full refund under this section.
(2) The voucher, credit, or other form of compensation offered explicitly as an alternative to providing a refund required by paragraph (a) of this section remains valid and redeemable by the consumer for a period of at least five years from the date on which such voucher, credit, or other form of compensation is issued;
(3) Upon the issuance of such voucher, credit, or other form of compensation, a covered carrier notifies the recipient of the expiration date of the voucher, credit, or other form of compensation; and
(4) Upon request by an individual who self identifies as an individual with a disability a covered carrier provides a notification under paragraph (c)(3) of this section in an electronic format accessible to the recipient.
(d)
(e)
A covered carrier must not deem a consumer to have accepted an offer for travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation in lieu of a refund under § 260.6(c) unless the consumer affirmatively agrees to the alternative form of compensation.
In carrying out the requirements of § 260.6(c), a covered carrier must clearly and conspicuously disclose, no later than at the time of voucher or credit offer, any material restrictions, limitations, or conditions on travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation, including but not limited to validity period, advance purchase requirement, capacity restrictions, and blackout dates, regardless of whether consumers are entitled to a refund.
(a) Upon the occurrence of a flight cancellation or a significant delay or change, a covered carrier must timely notify affected consumers about the cancellation or significant delay or change, and the information relating to any alternative to refund as provided in § 260.6(c).
(b) Covered air carriers must ensure that their passenger notification systems notify passengers owed a refund pursuant to § 260.6(a) and (b) of their right to receive a refund. Covered carriers that provide notification subscription services to passengers must ensure notifications under this paragraph be provided through media that the carriers offer and the subscribers choose, including emails, text messages, and push notices from mobile apps.
49 U.S.C. 40113(a), 41712, 46106, 46107, and 42305.
(l) Failing to make a prompt refund of airfare (including any taxes and ancillary fees) to a consumer, upon request, for a cancelled flight or a significantly delayed or changed flight if the consumer chooses not to travel or accept compensation in lieu of a refund in situations described in 14 CFR 260.6(a) and (b) when the ticket agent is the merchant of record. Failing to provide a prompt refund of airfare (including any taxes and ancillary fees), upon request, for a significantly delayed or changed flight itinerary to consumers on the same reservation as an individual with a disability who does not want to continue travel because of a significant change described in paragraph (l)(1)(vii)(E) of this section related to downgrades or paragraph (l)(1)(vii)(G) of this section related to aircraft substitution which result in one or more accessibility features needed by the individual with a disability becoming unavailable or because of the significant change described in paragraph (l)(1)(vii)(F) of this section related to change in connecting airports. A prompt refund is one that is made within 7 business days of the ticket agent receiving information from a carrier as specified in 14 CFR 260.6(d), as required by 12 CFR part 1026 for credit card purchases, and within 20 calendar days of refund becoming due for cash, check, debit card, or other forms of purchases. Ticket agents must provide the refunds in the original form of payment (
(1) For purposes of this paragraph (l), the following definitions apply:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(A) The consumer is scheduled to depart from the origination airport three hours or more for domestic itineraries and six hours or more for international itineraries earlier than the original scheduled departure time;
(B) The consumer is scheduled to arrive at the destination airport three hours or more for domestic itineraries or six hours or more for international itineraries later than the original scheduled arrival time;
(C) The consumer is scheduled to depart from a different origination airport or arrive at a different destination airport;
(D) The consumer is scheduled to travel on an itinerary with more connection points than that of the original itinerary;
(E) The consumer is downgraded to a lower class of service;
(F) The consumer with a disability is scheduled to travel through one or more connecting airports that are different from the original itinerary; or
(G) The consumer with a disability is scheduled to travel on substitute aircraft on which one or more accessibility features needed by the passenger are unavailable.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to extend import restrictions on certain archaeological material from the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. The Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, has made the requisite determinations for extending the import restrictions, which were originally imposed by CBP Decision 19-09. Accordingly, these import restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to reflect this further extension through August 15, 2029.
Effective August 15, 2024.
For legal aspects, W. Richmond Beevers, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0084,
The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
On August 15, 2019, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (Algeria) to impose import restrictions on certain archaeological material representing Algeria's cultural heritage that is at least 250 years old, dating from the Paleolithic (approximately 2.4 million years ago), Neolithic, Classical, Byzantine, and Islamic periods and into the Ottoman period to A.D. 1750 (2019 MOU). On August 16, 2019, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 19-09) in the
On December 13, 2023, the United States Department of State proposed in the
Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions. The restrictions on the importation of archaeological material from Algeria will continue in effect through August 15, 2029. Importation of such material from Algeria continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address:
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and, by extension, Executive Order 13563.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of the Secretary's delegate) to approve
Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
(a) * * *
Approved.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within the West Passage of Narragansett Bay on September 4, 2024. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the air show. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England.
This rule is effective from 6 p.m. on September 04, 2024, through 7:30 p.m. on September 05, 2024. The rule will only be subject to enforcement from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on September 04, 2024, unless the event time is changed because of weather conditions in which case it may be subject to enforcement those same hours on September 05, 2024.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email MST2 Christopher Matthews, Waterways Management Division, Sector Southeastern New England, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 571-610-4969, email
On June 4, 2024, the Heritage Flight Foundation notified the Coast Guard that they would be conducting an air show from 6 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on September 04, 2024. The air show will take place in the vicinity of the West Passage in Narragansett Bay, RI, near Fort Getty, Jamestown, RI.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. We must establish the temporary safety zone by September 04, 2024, to ensure the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the air show.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the air show occurring on September 04, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the West Passage in Narragansett Bay, RI, near Fort Getty, Jamestown, RI. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the air show.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 6 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. on September 04, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the following latitude and longitude points, 41°29.755′ N, 071°24.658′ W; 41°29.807′ N, 071°24.225′ W; 41°28.831′ N, 071°24.019′ W; 41°28.780′ N, 071°24.452′ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the air show. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 1.5 hours and impacting a limited area of the West Passage of Narragansett Bay during an air show. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1.5 hours that will prohibit entry into a portion of the West Passage of Narragansett Bay. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the following latitude and longitude points, 41°29.755′ N, 071°24.658′ W; 41°29.807′ N, 071°24.225′ W; 41°28.831′ N, 071°24.019′ W; 41°28.780′ N, 071°24.452′ W. It is 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 866-819-9128. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of kasugamycin in or on tea, dried. UPL Delaware, Inc. (UPL) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This rule is effective August 12, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 11, 2024 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0399, is available at
Charles Smith, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0399 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 11, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for kasugamycin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with kasugamycin follows. In an effort to streamline its publications in the
EPA has previously published a tolerance rulemaking for kasugamycin in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to kasugamycin and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from that rulemaking as described further in this rule, as they remain unchanged.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by kasugamycin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for kasugamycin used for human risk assessment can be found on pages 10-12 of the document “Kasugamycin. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Tolerance without U.S. Registration on Tea.”, hereinafter “Kasugamycin Human Health Risk Assessment,” in Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0399 at
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
4.
EPA has not found kasugamycin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and kasugamycin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that kasugamycin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
EPA continues to conclude that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. of the March 6, 2018, rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that determination.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing dietary exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term aggregate risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated total food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of kasugamycin has been developed and validated in all appropriate agricultural commodities. For the tea residue studies, residues were quantified with a liquid chromatograph-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS).
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established MRLs for kasugamycin in or on any commodities. Japan has an established MRL on tea at 3 ppm. EPA is proposing to harmonize with the Japanese MRL.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of kasugamycin, (3-O-[2-
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
This regulation is effective August 12, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 11, 2024 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0323, is available at
Madison H. Le, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0323, in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 11, 2024.
The EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by the EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0323, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows the EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if the EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require the EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
The EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on
The available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans,
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” No risk of cumulative toxicity/effects from
Additionally, although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides for an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects, the EPA has determined that there are no such effects due to the lack of toxicity of
Based upon its evaluation in the human health risk assessment of
An analytical method is not required for
One comment was received in response to the notice of filing. The EPA reviewed the comment and determined that it was irrelevant to the tolerance exemption in this action.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require the EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
This regulation is effective August 12, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 11, 2024 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0318, is available at
Madison H. Le., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1400; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0318 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 11, 2024.
The EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by the EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0318, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows the EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if the EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require the EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
The EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on
The available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans,
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” No risk of cumulative toxicity/effects from
Additionally, although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides for an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects, the EPA has determined that there are no such effects due to the lack of toxicity of
Based upon its evaluation in the human health risk assessment of
An analytical method is not required for
One comment was received in response to the notice of filing. The EPA reviewed the comment and determined that it was irrelevant to the tolerance exemption in this action.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require the EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of
Legal Services Corporation.
Final rule.
The Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) FY 2024 appropriation enacted on March 9, 2024, included language that lowered the proportion of attorneys required to serve on the governing bodies of LSC grant recipients from 60% to 33%, and eliminated the requirement that bar associations appoint the majority of attorneys. This final rule revises LSC's regulation pertaining to recipient governing bodies to be consistent with this directive from Congress.
This final rule is effective on January 1, 2025.
Stefanie K. Davis, Deputy General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax), or
The LSC Act of 1974 requires grant recipients to have governing bodies composed of at least 60% attorneys. 42 U.S.C. 2996f(c). LSC adopted Part 1607 and the 60% requirement in 1976. 41 FR 25899, June 23, 1976. Subsequently, LSC's fiscal year (FY) 1983 appropriation included a requirement that a majority of each recipient's governing body be composed of attorneys appointed by state or local bar associations, also known as the “McCollum Amendment.” Public Law 97-276, 96 Stat. 1186. LSC revised Part 1607 in 1983 to implement the McCollum Amendment. 48 FR 1971, Jan. 17, 1983. The McCollum Amendment currently appears in § 502(2)(b)(ii) of LSC's FY 1996 appropriation, which is incorporated through § 502 of LSC's FY 1998 appropriation, as referenced in all LSC appropriations from 1998 through 2024.
LSC's FY 2024 appropriation changed the minimum attorney percentage to 33% and eliminated the McCollum Amendment requirement. The Administrative Provision of this appropriation reiterates the incorporation of prior appropriations' restrictions by reference. It also includes language stating that for purposes of applying the board composition requirements described in LSC's FY 1998 appropriation, the requirements would be satisfied if at least 33% of a grant recipient's board were composed of attorneys licensed in the state in which legal assistance is to be provided. Finally, it includes language stating that the McCollum Amendment does not apply. Public Law 118-42, Div. C, Title IV, 141 (2024) .
LSC proposed to make the following changes to incorporate the statutory changes and to reorganize § 1607.3 for ease of reference. First, LSC proposed to delete § 1607.3(b)(1) in its entirety and replace it with a new paragraph (b)(1) stating that a recipient's governing body must be composed of at least 33% attorneys. LSC proposed removing the language implementing the McCollum Amendment. LSC also proposed to redesignate existing paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii), respectively.
Second, LSC proposed reorganizing the section by relocating the categories of governing body members currently located in paragraphs (c) and (d) to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3), respectively, and placing the processes for appointments into subparagraphs under each category. LSC believes that restructuring § 1607.3 in this way will make it easier for readers to understand the categories of membership on LSC recipients' governing bodies and the considerations recipients use to recruit and select members.
Third, LSC proposed to redesignate paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as (c), (d), and (e).
Finally, LSC proposed revising paragraph (e) to reflect the statutory change and allow recipient staff to recommend candidates to their governing bodies. LSC believes this change would empower recipient staff to identify and propose clients, attorneys, or other community members with relevant expertise for appointment to their respective governing bodies.
On April 2, 2024, the LSC Operations and Regulations Committee voted to recommend that the Board authorize LSC to open rulemaking on part 1607 and authorize publication of this NPRM in the
Materials regarding this rulemaking are available in the open rulemaking section of LSC's website at
LSC received two comments during the public comment period. Comments were received from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) and Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County (NLSLA), an LSC grantee. Both comments supported LSC's proposed changes. NLSLA fully supported LSC's changes to § 1607.3(b)(1) due to the “increased capacity to identify candidates that have useful experiences” that are beneficial and effective to the boards of grant recipients. NLSLA also agreed with LSC's removal of the McCollum Amendment to allow “programs to use their discretion to select potential attorney members or designate other organizations to propose candidates.”
NLADA stated that it believed the proposed rule change allows for “talented individuals to join governing bodies, contributing new and important experience, skills, and perspectives.” NLADA further supported the rule change because it will “improve the quality of the attorneys that serve on the governing bodies of LSC grantees.”
LSC is making two technical changes that do not affect the substance of the final rule. First, at its April 2, 2024, meeting, a member of the Committee recommended reorganizing paragraph (b)(3) for consistency with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). LSC has made this technical change to the rule text. Additionally, in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (e)(1), LSC is replacing the term “the poor” with “low-income populations” based on the recommendation of a member of LSC's Board of Directors. The term “low-income populations” is also more consistent with LSC's use of the Income Eligibility Guidelines. LSC is otherwise adopting this rule as proposed.
Grant program—law, Legal services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation amends 45 CFR part 1607 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).
(b) A recipient's governing body must be composed of:
(1) At least 33% attorneys;
(i) Attorney members may be selected by the recipient's governing body or may be selected by other organizations designated by the recipient which have an interest in the delivery of legal services to low-income populations.
(ii) Selections shall be made to ensure that the attorney members reasonably reflect the diversity of the legal community and the population of the areas served by the recipient, including race, ethnicity, gender, and other similar factors.
(2) At least one-third eligible client members who are eligible client members when initially selected by the recipient.
(i) Recipients must solicit recommendations for eligible client members from a variety of appropriate groups designated by the recipient that may include, but are not limited to, client and neighborhood associations and community-based organizations that advocate for or deliver services or resources to the client community served by the recipient.
(ii) Recipients should solicit recommendations from groups in a manner that reflects, to the extent possible, the variety of interests within the client community, and eligible client members should be selected so that they reasonably reflect the diversity of the eligible client population served by the recipient, including race, gender, ethnicity, and other similar factors.
(3) Other members selected by the recipients' governing body or in another manner described in the recipient's bylaws or policies.
(i) Recipients must appoint or select members so that the governing body as a whole reasonably reflects the diversity of the areas served by the recipient, including race, ethnicity, gender, and other similar factors.
(ii) Recipients should consider recruiting and selecting members possessing fiscal or nonprofit governance expertise or other skills necessary to effectively govern the recipient's operations.
(iii) Members of a governing body shall not be dominated by persons serving as the representatives of a single association, group or organization, except that eligible client members may be selected from client organizations that are composed of coalitions of numerous smaller or regionally based client groups.
(c) Members of a governing body may be selected by appointment, election, or other means consistent with this part and with the recipient's bylaws and applicable State law.
(d) Recipients shall make reasonable and good faith efforts to ensure that governing body vacancies are filled as promptly as possible.
(e) Recipient staff may recommend candidates for governing body membership to its governing body and other appointing groups and should consult with the appointing organizations to ensure that:
(1) Appointees meet the criteria for board membership set out in this part, including financial eligibility for persons appointed as eligible clients, bar admittance requirements for
(2) The particular categories of board membership and the board as a whole meet the diversity requirement described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
(3) Appointees do not have actual and significant individual or institutional conflicts of interest with the recipient or the recipient's client community that could reasonably be expected to influence their ability to exercise independent judgement as members of the recipient's governing body.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, are amending the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) by updating the entries for five species of threatened Caribbean corals (
This rule is effective August 12, 2024.
• The Caribbean corals critical habitat designations were effective September 8, 2023.
• The designation of the Upper Yuba River Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon nonessential experimental population was effective January 27, 2023.
• The designation of the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers Sacramento River winter-run and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon nonessential experimental populations were effective September 27, 2023.
Caitlin Snyder, Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS-ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; 703-358-2171. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
In accordance with the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We are updating the entries on the List for
We are also adding entries on the List for the Upper Yuba River Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (
On May 12, 2023, NMFS published a proposed rule (88 FR 30690) to designate the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers Sacramento River winter-run and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon populations as NEPs. NMFS solicited public comments on the proposed rule during a 30-day comment period ending June 12, 2023. NMFS addressed all public comments received in response to the proposed rule and on August 28, 2023, published a final rule (88 FR 58511) designating the population as an NEP. The designation was effective September 27, 2023.
By publishing this final rule, we are simply taking the necessary administrative step to codify these changes in the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
Because NMFS provided public comment periods on the proposed rules for these taxa, and because this action of FWS is to amend the List in accordance with the determination by NMFS under section (4)(a)(2) of the Act, FWS finds good cause that the notice and public comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary for this action. We also find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective immediately. The NMFS rules extended protection under the Act to these species and amended 50 CFR parts 223 and 226 to designate nonessential experimental populations and establish special rules for these populations, and to designate critical habitat for the five coral species. This rule is an administrative action to update the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h). The public would not be served by delaying the effective date of this rulemaking action.
We have determined that an environmental assessment (EA), as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We outlined our reasons for this determination in the
In compliance with all provisions of NEPA, NMFS analyzed the impact on the human environment and considered a reasonable range of alternatives for the final rules to designate these three nonessential experimental populations of Chinook salmon. Draft EAs were made available for comments with the publication of the proposed rules, and NMFS responded to those comments in their final rules (87 FR 79808, December 28, 2022; and 88 FR 58511, August 28, 2023). Additionally, NMFS prepared a final EA and finding of no significant impact on each NEP designation of Chinook salmon and made these documents available for public inspection.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the CFR, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; in-season adjustment.
NMFS announces that the commercial per-trip possession limit for the blueline tilefish fishery has been reduced for the remainder of the 2024 fishing year. This announcement informs the public of the reduced blueline tilefish possession limit. This action is intended to prevent over-harvest of blueline tilefish for the fishing year.
Effective August 12, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
Regulations for the blueline tilefish fishery are at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations at § 648.295(b)(2)(i) state that when NMFS projects that blueline tilefish commercial catch will reach 70 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL), the Regional Administrator may reduce the possession limit for the commercial blueline tilefish fishery for the remainder of the fishing year or until 100 percent of the TAL is landed. When this occurs, the blueline tilefish possession limit is reduced from 500 pounds (lb) (226.7 kilograms (kg)) to 300 lb (136.1 kg) per trip in the Tilefish Management Unit. Fish must have head and fins attached, but may be gutted. NMFS monitors the blueline tilefish fishery catch based on dealer reports, state data, and other available information.
The Regional Administrator has determined, based on dealer reports and other available information, that the blueline tilefish commercial fishery will land 70 percent of the TAL by August 12, 2024. Upon filing this action in the
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This action implements provisions of § 648.295, which were issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the delayed effectiveness period because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. Data and other information indicating the blueline tilefish commercial fishery will have landed 70 percent of the TAL have only recently become available. Landings data are updated by dealer reports on a weekly basis, and NMFS monitors data as catch increases toward the limit. This action is routine and formulaic. The regulations at § 648.295(b)(2)(i) provide for such action to slow down catch as the fishery approaches its TAL, reducing the likelihood that the fishery will need to be shut down before the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seeking comments on proposed amendments to its regulation governing parent companies of industrial banks and industrial loan companies. This regulation, which was adopted in December 2020, requires certain conditions and written commitments in situations that would result in an industrial bank or industrial loan company becoming a subsidiary of a company that is not subject to consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve Board. The proposed amendments would revise the definition of “Covered Company” to include conversions involving a proposed industrial bank or industrial loan company under section 5 of the Home Owners' Loan Act, or other transactions as determined by the FDIC; ensure that a parent company of an industrial bank subject to a change of control, or a parent company of an industrial bank subject to a merger in which it is the resultant entity, would be subject to the FDIC's regulation; and provide the FDIC the regulatory authority to apply the regulation to other situations where an industrial bank would become a subsidiary of a company that is not subject to Federal consolidated supervision. Additionally, the proposed amendments would clarify the relationship between written commitments and the FDIC's evaluation of the relevant statutory factors. The proposed amendments also would set forth additional criteria that the FDIC would consider when assessing the risks presented to an industrial bank or industrial loan company by its parent company and any affiliates and evaluating the institution's ability to function independently of the parent company and any affiliates.
Comments will be accepted until October 11, 2024.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, identified by RIN 3064-AF88, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Catherine Topping, Counsel, (202) 898-3975,
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) monitors, evaluates, and takes necessary action to ensure the safety and soundness of State nonmember banks,
Industrial banks are exempted from the definition of “bank” for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA). As a result, both financial and commercial companies can control an industrial bank without being subject to
Dependent relationships raise supervisory concerns because the industrial bank's operations and condition may be vulnerable to any financial distress or operational disruptions at the parent organization. In such circumstances, there may be undue pressures or influences from the parent organization that impair the industrial bank's ability to maintain independent oversight and decision-making at the bank level. Further, where financial distress is experienced across the organization, concerns may develop that negatively impact capital and liquidity levels, earnings prospects, and the capacity of affiliates to fulfill their service commitments or other obligations to the industrial bank.
In addition, significant resolution concerns may be presented if the industrial bank's parent company fails or otherwise faces significant financial difficulty that impairs its ability to perform under the agreements required by part 354. An industrial bank could have its business operations disrupted if critical support services provided by a parent company or its affiliates are lost. Additionally, overreliance on parent company support for daily operations could leave the industrial bank with little independent franchise value in the event of a failure. In such a case, the FDIC as receiver potentially would be faced with limited and more costly resolution options, such as establishing a bridge bank or employing a deposit payout.
In light of these concerns, the FDIC has identified a number of changes to part 354 that are warranted to clarify and enhance the supervisory framework with respect to industrial banks. The proposed rule addresses the FDIC's concerns regarding the potential risk presented to an industrial bank subsidiary from its parent organization, including the relevant interdependencies, operational risks, and other circumstances or events that could create safety and soundness concerns and attendant risk to the DIF. The proposed amendments would incorporate criteria that the FDIC will consider in assessing the overall impact of a parent company and its affiliates on its industrial bank subsidiary and would provide notice and transparency to those companies that would seek to establish or acquire an industrial bank.
The FDIC has received a limited number of filings where the parent company would control an industrial bank as a result of a conversion pursuant to section 5(i)(5) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA).
The FDIC is also proposing to amend the definition of “Covered Company” in order to ensure that if a parent company of an industrial bank organized before April 1, 2021, is subject to a change of control, or such parent company is subject to a merger in which it is the resultant entity, it would be subject to part 354. Finally, the FDIC is proposing an amendment that would provide the FDIC the regulatory authority to apply part 354 to other situations where an industrial bank would become a subsidiary of a company that is not subject to Federal consolidated supervision.
On February 23, 2021, the FDIC published a final rule governing the parent companies of industrial banks, codified at part 354.
Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), industrial banks are “State banks”
The Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 exempted industrial banks from the definition of “bank” in the BHCA.
As of June 27, 2024, there were 23 industrial banks
Since 2008, there have been two newly established industrial banks: Nelnet Bank, Draper, Utah, and Square Financial Services, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, which became FDIC-insured in November 2020 and March 2021, respectively. The applications for Nelnet Bank and Square Financial Services, Inc. were approved in March 2020.
When part 354 was finalized on February 23, 2021, there were six pending industrial bank deposit insurance applications. Since that time, the FDIC received three additional industrial bank deposit insurance applications. Of the nine applications received since March 2020, one was approved, six have been withdrawn,
Because industrial banks are insured State nonmember banks, they are subject to the FDIC Rules and Regulations, as well as other provisions of law, including restrictions under the Federal Reserve Act governing transactions with affiliates,
In addition, under section 38A of the FDI Act,
Part 354 conforms to the FDIC's historical practice of requiring capital and liquidity maintenance agreements (CALMAs) and other written agreements between the FDIC and controlling parties of industrial banks as well as the imposition of prudential conditions when approving or non-objecting to certain filings involving an industrial bank.
The FDIC amends its regulations under the general rulemaking authority prescribed in section 9 of the FDI Act
Part 354 applies to Covered Companies and industrial banks controlled by a Covered Company. “Covered Company” is defined in part 354 to mean, in each case on or after April 1, 2021, any company that is not subject to Federal consolidated supervision by the FRB and that controls an industrial bank (1) as a result of a change in bank control pursuant to section 7(j) of the FDI Act; (2) as a result of a merger transaction pursuant to section 18(c) of the FDI Act; or (3) that is granted deposit insurance by the FDIC pursuant to section 6 of the FDI Act.
Section 354.6 currently
As noted above, the FDIC has received a limited number of filings where the parent company would control an industrial bank as a result of a conversion pursuant to section 5(i)(5) of the HOLA.
Consequently, the FDIC is proposing to amend the definition of “Covered Company” to expressly include filings made pursuant to section 5(i)(5) of the HOLA. While § 354.6 preserves the FDIC's authority to impose such conditions as it may deem necessary in connection with a conversion under section 5(i)(5) of the HOLA to an industrial bank, the FDIC believes specific regulatory language is appropriate.
The FDIC is proposing a second amendment to the definition of “Covered Company” to include companies that control an industrial bank if, on or after the effective date of the amendment to the definition of “Covered Company,” there is a change in control at the parent company or there is a merger transaction in which the parent company is the resultant entity. The proposed amendment would fill an unintended gap that results from the construction of the current definition of “Covered Company.” Currently, industrial banks and their parent companies would not be subject to part 354 unless the parent company controls the industrial bank as a result of one of three triggering events enumerated in the “Covered Company” definition, in each case after the effective date of part 354. This approach divides industrial banks into (1) legacy institutions to which part 354 does not apply, on the one hand and (2) legacy institutions that become subject to part 354 as a result of one of the three triggers, or new institutions, on the other, and (3) de novo industrial banks.
The gap results where there is a change in control or merger that occurs at or above the level of the parent company that results in a change in the person that controls the parent company but does not result in a change in the relationship between the industrial bank and its parent company. Similarly, if the parent company were a party to a merger in which it is the resultant entity, then new management with a new plan for the industrial bank could be installed. The parent company would continue to control the industrial bank, but not as a result of one of the trigger events, thus failing to make the parent company a Covered Company subject to part 354.
The FDIC has an interest in being able to review changes that impact the parent's control of the industrial bank. This interest is recognized specifically in the Change in Bank Control Act, which requires the prior FDIC approval of the acquisition of direct or indirect control of a State nonmember bank.
Finally, the FDIC is proposing an amendment that would provide the FDIC the regulatory authority to apply part 354 to any other situation where an industrial bank would become a subsidiary of a company that is not subject to Federal consolidated supervision. The FDIC recognizes that such an amendment could potentially lead to the application of this part to a legacy institution, despite the April 2021 effective date of part 354. Accordingly, the FDIC proposes to allow a filer of an application or notice, or participant in a transaction, an opportunity to present its views in writing if the company does not agree with the FDIC's determination to apply part 354 to a particular filing. The proposed amendments to part 354 would make clear that such a written filing should be submitted in accordance with part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations.
This type of provision, with the opportunity for a filer to express its views regarding the FDIC's determination, is not without precedent in the FDIC Rules and Regulations.
The FDIC has the responsibility to consider filings based on statutory criteria. For example, when reviewing an application for deposit insurance, the FDIC must consider the factors enumerated in section 6 of the FDI Act.
Generally, if all statutory factors are favorably resolved, FDIC staff will recommend approval of or non-objection to the filing, subject to prudential conditions and written commitments for filings involving an industrial bank. If FDIC staff finds unfavorably on one or more statutory factors based on the filing review, staff generally will recommend denial of or objection to the filing. Upon taking action on a filing, or if a proponent withdraws their filing during the review process, the FDIC Board of Directors may release a statement addressing the Board's views regarding the transaction if such a statement is considered to be in the public interest for purposes of creating transparency for the public and future applicants.
Per § 354.3, the FDIC requires written agreements among a Covered Company and the FDIC and the subsidiary industrial bank. These agreements include commitments by the Covered Company to comply with each of paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) in § 354.4, and such other written agreements, commitments, or restrictions the FDIC deems appropriate, when approving or non-objecting to certain filings involving an industrial bank. Section 354.4 requires each party to a written agreement to comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (8). These required commitments are intended to provide the safeguards and protections that the FDIC believes are prudent to impose in order to maintain the safety and soundness of industrial banks that are controlled by Covered Companies. The FDIC included these required commitments in part 354 to provide transparency to current and potential industrial banks, the companies that control them, and the general public.
Moreover, under its general supervision, examination, and enforcement authorities (as reserved by § 354.6), the FDIC may require additional unique commitments from a Covered Company or a controlling shareholder of a Covered Company when the FDIC determines it is necessary to address specific elements of a filing or circumstances related to the filer. Additional commitments may be derived, for instance, from elements of the business model presented, including the nature and scope of activities conducted, the risk characteristics of the activities, or the complexity of operations. The proposed relationships and transactions with the parent organization that may impact the industrial bank could also be taken into consideration in determining commitments.
In considering recent industrial bank filings, the FDIC has become concerned that applicants may be misinterpreting part 354 and the effects of the written commitments required under the rule as they relate to the FDIC's assessment of the applicable statutory factors. While part 354 permits the FDIC to condition the approval of an application or non-objection to a notice on the Covered Company and industrial bank entering into written agreements and making required commitments, and the written agreements will be taken into account as part of the FDIC's consideration of the underlying filing, they do not replace any statutory factor applicable to the filing and will not necessarily lead to the favorable resolution of any statutory factor where the facts and circumstances are otherwise unfavorable. This is a longstanding tenet of FDIC's applications processing policy and procedures.
CALMAs and parent company agreements are intended to protect the industrial bank and mitigate potential risks to the DIF, as well as to provide a means for the FDIC to pursue a formal enforcement action under sections 8 and 50 of the FDI Act if a party fails to comply with the agreements. Such agreements also capture in writing the Covered Company's obligation to serve as a source of financial strength to the industrial bank. However, such agreements do not in and of themselves resolve any given statutory factor. If a filing presents material concerns and fundamental weaknesses with respect to any statutory factor, the written agreements will not compensate for such weaknesses for purposes of resolving the statutory factor. For example, a written agreement would not be appropriate if the situation involves weak or questionable earnings projections, an unacceptable or opaque control structure, insufficient capital levels, weak or marginal management or director candidates, apparent violations of a statute or regulation, a higher-risk business model, or a failure to meet the convenience and needs of the community.
Consequently, the FDIC proposes to amend § 354.4 to clarify the FDIC's implementation of part 354 to expressly address and make clear, consistent with long-standing applications processing policy, that written agreements will be taken into account as part of the FDIC's consideration of the underlying filing, but do not replace any statutory factor applicable to the filing and will not necessarily lead to the favorable resolution of any statutory factor where the facts and circumstances are otherwise unfavorable. This applies to the required commitments and provisions within any written agreements, the industrial bank subsidiary restrictions that are also included within part 354, and any other conditions that may be imposed as part of the FDIC's approval of, or non-objection to, a filing.
Shell and captive bank business models create potentially significant supervisory concerns for industrial banks. The level of concern with these business models is inherently heightened due to the substantial reliance on the parent company or its affiliates, particularly with respect to the primary business operations of the industrial bank. This may include total or nearly exclusive reliance on the parent organization for sourcing business, conducting key operational elements (
In shell or captive structures, the industrial bank's operations and condition may be vulnerable to any financial distress or operational disruptions at the parent company or any affiliates that provide key services to the industrial bank. The heavily integrated relationship between the industrial bank and the parent organization results in significant concentration risks that are typically not present in traditional community bank operating structures. Further, the industrial bank generally has limited or no ability to operate independently from the parent organization and, as discussed below, lacks franchise value on a standalone basis.
The FDIC expects an industrial bank to have a sufficiently independent board of directors and management team, a sustainable financial structure with appropriate capital and liquidity maintained at the bank level, and a business model that is viable on a standalone basis (as defined in the proposed § 354.6(b)). Some industrial bank proposals involving shell or captive structures have lacked one or more of these elements, causing managerial concerns (due to the lack of independent oversight and decision-making or fully dedicated officers/staff at the industrial bank), as well as financial concerns (due to inadequate capital and liquidity levels, and earnings prospects that depend on maintaining internal organizational relationships).
The existing part 354 addresses some of the aforementioned concerns by requiring any Covered Company to enter into written agreements including specific provisions and commitments intended to ensure that the Covered Company supports the industrial bank and its ability to operate in a safe and sound manner. Among other items, the written agreements address board independence, capital and liquidity maintenance and support, and if required by the FDIC, contingency planning.
The FDIC's experience during the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis showed that business models involving an insured depository institution (IDI) inextricably tied to and reliant on the parent and/or its affiliates creates significant challenges and risks to the DIF, especially in circumstances where the parent organization experiences financial stress and/or declares bankruptcy.
The proposed revisions to part 354 would renumber the existing § 354.6 to § 354.7 and at § 354.6 would incorporate additional considerations that the FDIC would undertake to determine the degree of risk presented to the industrial bank from the parent company and its affiliates when considering the relevant statutory factors. These considerations address the business purpose for establishing or acquiring control of the industrial bank, intercompany relationships, the regulatory and consumer compliance history and supervisory record of each relevant entity, the novelty of the parent company's primary businesses (including any new or innovative processes), accessibility of information, and any plans or processes that mitigate risks presented by the parent company.
In addition, the proposed revisions to part 354 include considerations aimed at identifying shell or captive structures and presumptions the FDIC would apply as a consequence of such identification. The FDIC would review each filing covered by the rule on a case-by-case basis, on the facts and circumstances presented within the context of the applicable statutory factors to determine the degree to which the industrial bank would have an independent board and management team, a business model that is viable on a standalone basis, and franchise value that is independent of the parent company and its affiliates.
The proposed revisions would provide in § 354.6(c)(1) that an industrial bank would be presumed to be a shell or captive institution if it (a) could not function independently of the parent company, or (b) would be significantly or materially reliant on the parent company or its affiliates, or (c) would serve only as a funding channel for an existing parent company or affiliate business line. The FDIC would presume that the shell or captive nature of an industrial bank would weigh heavily against favorably resolving one or more of the applicable statutory factors.
The proposed amendment to the scope of the definition of “Covered Company” would allow any company subject to a determination that a transaction would result in the application of part 354 to contest the determination in writing. Additionally, proposed § 354.6(c)(2) would afford any company seeking to rebut a presumption described in paragraph (c)(1) an opportunity to present its views in writing. Section 354.6(c)(3) also would establish that a company's decision to provide written views regarding the applicability of part 354 or a presumption would place all related filings and transactions on hold so that the threshold applicability determinations can be resolved before further proceedings. Such a suspension would prevent the consummation of a transaction or transactions that may be difficult or costly to unwind.
As noted above, under the FDI Act, the FDIC must consider the convenience and needs of the community to be served when evaluating a deposit insurance or merger application. For some industrial bank proposals involving shell or captive structures, the primary deposit and credit products are both highly dependent upon the parent company and would target the customers of the parent company. Where a proposal for an industrial bank is presumed to be a shell or captive institution under the presumptions in proposed § 354.6(c)(1), if the target market is such that the institution's products are only available to customers of an affiliated company or a narrow segment of the community, this would weigh heavily against favorably resolving the convenience and needs statutory factor.
The public purpose of a bank charter with deposit insurance is that the bank will serve the convenience and needs of the community broadly. Business models that are not generally available to the members of the community absent purchasing a product by an affiliated entity raise serious questions as to whether the general community is sufficiently served to merit the grant of deposit insurance. Similar to the other presumption in proposed § 354.6(c)(1), the FDIC would review each filing on a case-by-case basis and filers may present facts to demonstrate that the community is effectively served notwithstanding the fact that the product offerings would be limited to customers of the affiliated entity or to a narrow segment only.
The evaluation of the convenience and needs of the community is a broad inquiry and would not be limited to strategies or plans under the Community Reinvestment Act. In assessing whether the convenience and needs of the community are met in industrial bank proposals, the FDIC would consider the customer base that the applicant intends to serve with its deposit and credit products and the market need filled through those products. The FDIC would also consider the convenience and benefits to the community that would not otherwise occur absent the creation of the industrial bank with deposit insurance. For instance, if there is a demonstrated lack of credit availability or competition (
In considering the convenience and needs of the community, the FDIC may require commitments or conditions from a Covered Company when the FDIC determines it is necessary to address specific elements of a filing, which may be derived from the business model.
Given the unique nature of industrial banks and the facts and circumstances of a particular transaction, the FDIC may also consider whether public hearings would be an appropriate means to obtain further public input on whether a specific application meets the convenience and needs of the community.
As noted previously, the universe of industrial banks is relatively small, with only 23 existing institutions. Several of the institutions primarily or entirely provide banking products and services to customers of affiliated entities within the parent organization (in general, these industrial banks do not broadly serve the general public, customers of unaffiliated businesses, or geographic markets that differ from those of the parent company or its affiliates). These include, but are not limited to, industrial banks established or acquired by commercial companies to support the sale or lease of manufactured products (
Some of the existing industrial banks rely to a significant extent on their parent companies or affiliates for business generation, operational aspects, and/or a variety of corporate support services. While many of the industrial banks are closely integrated with their parent organizations, they typically maintain adequate capital, have sufficient liquidity, and reflect satisfactory overall risk profiles. For the most part, the existing industrial banks are seasoned in nature (all but two were established between 1984 and 2006), and fared similarly to other types of financial institutions during previous banking crises.
Importantly, industrial banks are subject to all of the same restrictions and requirements, regulatory oversight, and safety-and-soundness and consumer compliance examinations—including compliance with fair lending laws and regulations, and the Community Reinvestment Act—as any other kind of insured state nonmember bank. This includes examining the industrial bank for compliance with laws and regulations, including affiliate transaction limits and capital maintenance requirements. The FDIC also has the authority and capacity to regulate industrial banks and their parent companies.
In addition to the supervisory concerns described above, an FDIC-insured industrial bank with a shell or captive business model presents the risk of costly and delayed resolution in the event of the industrial bank's failure.
As with any failed IDI, an FDIC-insured industrial bank must be resolved under the FDI Act.
The most common method of resolution is a purchase and assumption transaction where a significant portion of a failed IDI's assets is sold to a healthy financial institution in exchange for its assumption of part or all of the failed IDI's deposit liabilities. Other resolution methods include direct payouts to depositors, the creation of a bridge bank that will perform certain functions of the failed bank and operate as an interim IDI, or the organization of a deposit insurance national bank. The FDIC-R's resolution options may be limited by the statutory requirement to use whichever option will be the least costly to the DIF.
In some industrial bank proposals that the FDIC has received, the viability and operations of the bank are dependent on ongoing support from the parent organization. In such cases, financial or operational stress at the parent company or any of its affiliates reduces the franchise value of the industrial bank in the event of failure and complicates its resolution. The underlying value of such an industrial bank lies in its connection with the parent organization, which may provide benefits including, but not limited to, name recognition, clients or referrals, personnel and back-office support, and/or specific product offerings that complement the parent company's or affiliates' lines of business. If such connections were to be severed, the FDIC likely would find it more difficult to facilitate a resolution with a healthy bank, and it likely would be forced to employ less efficient resolution methods that are more lengthy, cumbersome, and costly, such as depositor payouts and piecemeal loan (or other asset) sales.
Similarly, the loss of critical support services previously provided to the industrial bank by its parent organization or affiliates would pose a potentially significant challenge in a resolution scenario, as the parent or affiliated entities may no longer be able to fulfill their obligations under existing service agreements. If the parent company or its affiliates remain open and operating, the FDIC-R would have the authority to enforce the failed IDI's arrangements in accordance with the contractual terms.
Importantly, under part 354, the FDIC may require a Covered Company and industrial bank to commit to provide, and thereafter implement and adhere to, a contingency plan.
As of March 31, 2024, the FDIC supervised 2,920 IDIs, with combined assets of $4.2 trillion.
The proposed rule would apply prospectively to deposit insurance, change in control, merger, and conversion filings, and other situations as may be determined by the FDIC that result in an industrial bank that is controlled by a Covered Company. It is difficult to estimate the number of potential Covered Companies that would seek to establish, acquire, or convert a Federal savings association to an industrial bank, as such an estimate would depend on considerations that affect Covered Companies' decisions. These considerations, and how they affect decision making, are difficult for the FDIC to forecast, estimate, or model, as the considerations include external parties' evaluations of potential business strategies for the industrial bank as well as future financial conditions, rates of return on capital, and innovations in the provision of financial services, among others.
According to FDIC administrative data on application submissions, one industrial bank submitted a change in control application and three industrial banks submitted de novo bank applications between April 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, for a total of four applications, or approximately one-and-a-half applications per year. None of these applications have resulted in an industrial bank being controlled by a Covered Company. For purposes of this analysis, the FDIC assumes that part 354 would apply to two filings per year seeking to establish, acquire, or convert to an industrial bank.
The FDIC anticipates that the proposed rule would benefit the public and the DIF by promoting the safe and sound operation of industrial banks controlled by companies that are not subject to consolidated supervision by the FRB. These public benefits cannot be reliably quantified. Specific proposed requirements and potential costs to filers of complying with these requirements are discussed below.
One amendment in the proposed rule would expand the scope of Covered Companies under part 354. Specifically, the proposed amendment would apply part 354 to HOLA conversion applications as well as any other situation where an industrial bank would become a subsidiary of a company that is not subject to Federal consolidated supervision. The industrial bank and Covered Company in such situations would be required to enter into certain agreements. These agreements include commitments by the Covered Company to comply with each paragraph (a)(1) through (8) in § 354.4, and such other written agreements, commitments or restrictions the FDIC deems appropriate when approving or non-objecting to certain filings involving industrial banks. Section 354.4(b) also includes an optional contingency plan requirement that the FDIC may impose depending on the filer's business plan and other factors.
As discussed in the final rule that established part 354,
As part of the amendment to expand the definition of Covered Company, the proposed rule would allow any company subject to a determination that a situation would result in the application of part 354 to present its views in writing. The FDIC believes that this proposed amendment would not affect the costs incurred by filers and that this proposed amendment will only serve to provide clarity by codifying existing practice.
Another provision in the proposed rule would amend § 354.4 to expressly address and make clear, consistent with long-standing applications processing policy, that written agreements shall not be used as a means to favorably resolve statutory factors or circumstances on which the FDIC would otherwise make an unfavorable finding. This proposed amendment would mitigate uncertainty and prevent misunderstandings among prospective filers subject to part 354. This improved clarity may reduce the time that the FDIC and a Covered Company may spend discussing and resolving issues with its filing. While the FDIC cannot quantify the time saved, the FDIC believes that an affected entity would not incur a significant cost as a result of this amendment.
As discussed above, the proposed rule would include considerations to be applied in identifying shell or captive structures, and presumptions that the FDIC will apply as a consequence of such identification. The proposed rule would also incorporate additional considerations that the FDIC will undertake to determine the degree of risk presented to the industrial bank from the parent company and its affiliates. The existing part 354 already addresses some of the risks that captive or shell industrial bank business models may present to the DIF. For example, under both the current part 354 and the proposed rule, the FDIC may require a Covered Company and industrial bank to commit to provide to the FDIC, and thereafter adhere to, a contingency plan that sets forth recovery actions to address significant financial or operational stress that could threaten the safe and sound operation of the industrial bank and strategies for the orderly disposition of such industrial bank without the need for the appointment of a receiver or conservator.
As part of the amendment aimed at identifying shell or captive structures and resulting presumptions, the proposed rule would afford any company seeking to rebut a presumption an opportunity to present its views in writing. While there may be costs incurred in the preparation of such a rebuttal, the FDIC believes that this burden would not be substantially greater than the costs incurred by filers in existing practice, absent this amendment, to respond to and allay FDIC concerns about the characteristics of their structures. Furthermore, filers who opt to prepare a rebuttal likely would believe that the costs of preparation would be outweighed by the expected benefits.
The proposed rule could indirectly affect subsidiaries of Covered Companies. Such Covered Companies operate through a variety of structures that include a range of subsidiaries and affiliates. Further, the proposed rule includes the FDIC's reservation of authority to require any industrial bank and its parent company, if not otherwise subject to part 354, to enter into written agreements, provide commitments, or abide by restrictions, as appropriate. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate the number of subsidiaries and affiliates of prospective Covered Companies, based on information currently available to the FDIC. However, given the FDIC's experience as the primary Federal regulator of industrial banks,
The FDIC is inviting comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to part 354, in addition to the questions above.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency, in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The
As of March 31, 2024, the FDIC supervised 2,920 institutions, of which 2,198 are considered small entities for purposes of the RFA.
As previously discussed, the requirements under part 354 apply to industrial banks organized on or after April 1, 2021, and industrial banks coming under the control of a Covered Company as a result of a transaction pursuant to either section 7(j) or 18(c) of the FDI Act. The proposed rule would amend the definition of Covered Companies to include prospective conversions
Notwithstanding the effect due to the change in the scope of affected entities described above, the FDIC also examined whether the other changes reflected in the proposed rule would have a significant effect on affected small entities. As discussed above, these amendments clarify certain provisions in part 354, provide increased transparency regarding how the FDIC evaluates potential risks and concerns, and serve to prevent any misinterpretation of part 354 that would be inconsistent with the FDIC's long-standing applications processing policy. The proposed rule affords any company seeking to rebut a presumption of a shell or captive institution an opportunity to present its views in writing—such filings should comport with the FDIC's existing rules regarding filing procedures. These amendments may reduce the time that the FDIC and a filer would spend discussing and resolving issues with its filing. While the FDIC cannot quantify the time saved, the FDIC believes that an affected entity would not incur a significant economic effect as a result of these amendments.
Based on the preceding information, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule does not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in this RFA section. In particular, would this proposed rule have any significant effects on a substantial number of small entities that the FDIC has not identified?
Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
As stated above, the proposed rule would change the scope of the existing regulations by revising the definition of “Covered Company” to include conversions involving a proposed industrial bank or industrial loan company under section 5 of the HOLA, or other situations as determined by the FDIC; clarifying the relationship between written commitments and the FDIC's evaluation of the relevant statutory factors; and setting forth additional criteria that the FDIC would consider when assessing the risks presented to an industrial bank by its parent company and any affiliates, and evaluating the industrial bank's ability to function independently of the parent company and any affiliates.
For these reasons, the information collection requirements contained in this proposed rulemaking will be submitted by the FDIC to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and § 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320). Given the change in scope in the proposed rule, the FDIC has increased the estimated respondent count by one in information collections 1-4. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the address listed in the
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
• Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could it present the proposed rule more clearly?
• Has the FDIC clearly stated the requirements of the proposed rule? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?
• Does the proposed rule contain technical jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed rule easier to understand? If so, what changes would make the proposed rule easier to understand?
• What else could the FDIC do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
The FDIC proposes to modify the regulations governing the parent companies of industrial banks in 12 CFR part 354. The amendments would revise the regulation's scope to include conversions involving proposed industrial banks under section 5 of the Home Owners' Loan Act and other situations as determined by the FDIC; clarify the relationship between written commitments and the FDIC's evaluation of relevant statutory factors; and set forth additional criteria the FDIC would consider when assessing the risks presented to an industrial bank by its parent company and affiliates and evaluating the institution's ability to function independently of its parent company and affiliates.
The proposal and the required summary can be found at
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Banking, Finance, Holding companies, Industrial banks, Industrial loan companies, Insurance, Parent company, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR part 354 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1464, 1811, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh) and (Tenth), 1820(g), 1831o 1, 3108, 3207.
(a) In each case on or after April 1, 2021, any company that is not subject to
(1) As a result of a change in bank control pursuant to section 7(j) of the FDI Act;
(2) As a result of a merger transaction pursuant to section 18(c) of the FDI Act;
(3) As a result of a conversion pursuant to section 5(i)(5) of the Home Owners' Loan Act;
(4) That is granted deposit insurance by the FDIC pursuant to section 6 of the FDI Act; or
(5) As determined by the FDIC after providing the company an opportunity to present its views in writing as to why the provisions of this part should not apply; or
(b) A company that controls an industrial bank, if, on or after [the effective date of the final rule]:
(1) The control of such company changes, requiring a notice subject to section 7(j) of the FDI Act; or
(2) The company is the resultant entity following a merger transaction.
(a) The commitments required to be made in the written agreements referenced in § 354.3 are set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section. In addition, with respect to an industrial bank subject to this part, the FDIC will condition each grant of deposit insurance, each issuance of a non-objection to a change in control, each approval of a merger, each approval of a conversion, and each determination of Covered Company status on compliance with paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section by the parties to the written agreement. As required, each Covered Company must:
(c) For each type of filing through which an industrial bank would become subject to this part, the FDIC must evaluate the appropriate statutory factors pursuant to applicable law. The required commitments, written agreement provisions, and industrial bank subsidiary restrictions, as described in this part, will be taken into account as part of the FDIC's consideration of the underlying filing, but do not replace any statutory factor applicable to an underlying filing and will not necessarily lead to the favorable resolution of any statutory factor where the facts and circumstances are otherwise unfavorable.
(a)
(1) The parent company's business purpose for establishing or acquiring control of the industrial bank;
(2) The existing and proposed relationships among the parent company and its affiliates;
(3) The parent company's history of regulatory and consumer compliance, including the status of any significant pending or outstanding enforcement actions, investigations, administrative matters, or contingent liabilities;
(4) The supervisory record of the parent company and any affiliates regulated by the Federal banking agencies;
(5) The novelty of the parent company's primary businesses, and the extent to which new or innovative processes are being implemented or utilized;
(6) The accessibility of information, including the books and records of the parent company and any affiliated domestic or foreign entities; and
(7) Any plans or processes that mitigate risks presented by the parent company.
(b)
(1) An independent board and management team; and
(2) A business model that is viable on a standalone basis and that has franchise value independent of the parent organization. A business model is viable on a standalone basis and has franchise value if the main business functions of the industrial bank will not be reliant on the parent organization, including the industrial bank's operations, loans and investments, deposits and other funding sources, client sourcing, and any other primary business activities.
(c)
(i) Could not function independently of the parent company;
(ii) Would be significantly or materially reliant on the parent company or its affiliates; or
(iii) Would serve only as a funding channel for an existing parent company or affiliate business line.
(2)
(3)
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-21-05, which applies to certain Saab AB Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. AD 2017-21-05 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, including new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) and to implement corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related tasks. Since the FAA issued AD 2017-21-05, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2017-21-05 and would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 26, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• For Saab AB material identified in this proposed AD, contact Saab AB, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA issued AD 2017-21-05, Amendment 39-19076 (82 FR 48917, October 23, 2017) (AD 2017-21-05), for certain Saab AB Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. AD 2017-21-05 was prompted by an MCAI originated EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0033) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-21-05), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2017-21-05 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, including new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and to implement CPCP related tasks. The FAA issued AD 2017-21-05 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2017-21-05, EASA superseded AD 2017-0033 and issued EASA AD 2024-0042, dated February 13, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0042) (referred to after this as the MCAI), for all Saab AB Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0042. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
This proposed AD would also require SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 27, 2017 (82 FR 48917, October 23, 2017).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2017-21-05. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2024-0042 already described, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2024-0042 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0042 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0042 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0042 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0042. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0042 for compliance will be available at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 81 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2017-21-05 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by September 26, 2024.
This AD replaces AD 2017-21-05, Amendment 39-19076 (82 FR 48917, October 23, 2017) (AD 2017-21-05).
This AD applies to all Saab AB (formerly known as Saab AB, Support and Services) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-21-05, with no changes. For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 1, 2016. Within 30 days after November 27, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-21-05): Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) and corrosion prevention and control (CPCP) related tasks, specified in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. The compliance time for the initial airworthiness limitation tasks is at the applicable compliance time specified in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016, or within 30 days after November 27, 2017, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-21-05, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0042, dated February 13, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0042). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2024-0042.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0042 specifies revising “the approved AMP,” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0042 is at the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0042, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2024-0042.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0042.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on [DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0042, dated February 13, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following material was approved for IBR on November 27, 2017 (82 FR 48917, October 23, 2017).
(i) SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) For EASA AD 2024-0042, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(6) For Saab AB material identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
(7) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(8) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its Veterans Legacy Grants Program (VLGP) regulations to align them with regulatory updates to the uniform administrative requirements and other requirements for Federal awards and makes additional revisions to improve the process for administration of the grant program. This rulemaking proposes housekeeping amendments to key terms, legal citations, and definitions and extends timelines for reporting and other grant recipient requirements.
Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2024.
Comments must be submitted through
John Williams, Senior Grants Management Specialist, Veterans Legacy Grants Program, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. Telephone: (314) 348-4073 (this is not a toll-free number).
VA proposes changes to the regulations governing Veterans Legacy grants to make housekeeping and clarifying edits, described below. These revisions would implement various programmatic improvements for applicants. Additionally, in April 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published revisions to Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (also known as the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200). Current VLGP regulations reference outdated 2 CFR part 200 throughout and in this rulemaking we propose changes to reflect revised sections, where appropriate.
VA proposes to replace the terms “Notice of Funding Availability” and “NOFA” with “Notice of Funding Opportunity” and “NOFO”, respectively, in 38 CFR 38.715(k) and throughout the VLGP regulations to align them with OMB's use and definition of the term “Notice of funding opportunity” in 2 CFR 200.1 and 200.204. Under the revised definition, the term “NOFO” would be defined as “a formal announcement of the availability of a Federal funding opportunity published in the OMB-designated government-wide website
VA proposes to replace the term “Grantee” with “Recipient” in 38 CFR 38.715(j) and to make similar changes throughout the VLGP regulations where applicable. This change would be consistent with OMB's use of the term “Recipient” as the entity that receives a Federal award directly from a Federal awarding agency. The alignment of these terms is intended to reduce any confusion for the public regarding the VLGP. The definition would clarify that “recipient” does not include a subrecipient or individual that is a beneficiary of the award.
OMB uniform grant guidance requires a funding agency to provide public notice of Federal financial assistance programs. Current 38 CFR 38.725 requires VA to publish funding opportunity announcements in both the
VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 38.735 (Additional factors for deciding applications) by updating the terminology in the regulation to align it with the terminology and process framework established in 2 CFR part 200. Specifically, VA would amend the heading in 38 CFR 38.735(a) from “Applicant's performance on prior award” to “Applicant's history of performance”. History of performance is a principal factor considered when evaluating an applicant's application. 2 CFR 200.206(b)(2)(iii). VA would revise the description for additional clarity and consistency on this deciding factor. The revised language would state that VA may consider the applicant's record
VA proposes to also amend the heading in 38 CFR 38.735(b) from “Applicant's fiscal integrity” to “Applicant's financial stability” to align it with 2 CFR 200.206(b)(2)(i), which includes an applicant's “financial stability” among the principal evaluative factors to consider. In addition, VA proposes to remove the reference to 2 CFR 200.205 within the description, which would provide flexibility for the VLGP regulation if future edits are made to 2 CFR part 200.
VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 38.765 (Recipient reporting requirements) to allow 120 calendar days after the end date of the period of performance for a grant recipient to submit a final report. Currently, the regulation only allows for a grant recipient to submit this information no later than 60 days after the last day of the grant period. The amended language would align with the closeout requirements under 2 CFR 200.344 (Closeout) and provide the grant recipient with the standard time period to submit required financial, performance, and other reports after the period of performance has concluded.
VA proposes to revise authority citations for the VLGP regulations. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.715 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203, which governs the requirement to provide public notice of Federal financial assistance programs, and adding in its place a reference to 2 CFR 200.1, which defines the term “notice of funding opportunity,” and 2 CFR 200.204, which sets forth requirements of notices of funding opportunities. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.725 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding in its place a reference to 2 CFR 200.204.
VA also proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.730 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.208, which sets forth specific conditions for federal grant awards. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.735 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.206, which provides that the Federal awarding agency will review risk posed by applicants. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.740 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.205, which provides that the Federal awarding agency will have a merit review process for proposals. VA also proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.745 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.211, which sets forth information contained in a Federal award. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.750 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.204, which governs notices of funding opportunities generally. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.755 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.211, which sets forth information contained in a Federal award.
VA also proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.760 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.305, which governs Federal payments. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.765 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.344, which governs closeout of federal awards. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.770 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.339 and 200.410, which sets forth remedies for noncompliance and addresses collection of unallowable costs, respectively. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.775 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.203 and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.329, which governs monitoring and reporting program performance. VA also proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.780 by including a reference to 2 CFR 200.476, which is included as part of the regulations governing general cost principles. VA proposes to revise the authority citation for § 38.785 by removing the reference to 2 CFR 200.333, which governs fixed amount subawards, and adding a reference to 2 CFR 200.334-200.338, which govern record retention and access.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 (Executive Order on Modernizing Regulatory Review) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The amendments proposed in this rule would likely not be determinative of whether small entities receive or do not receive a grant because they would have limited impact on small entities complying with grant application and reporting requirements. In addition to some technical revisions to the VLGP regulations, this rule would merely align those regulations to updates to the uniform administrative requirements and other requirements for Federal awards (2 CFR part 200). Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
Although this proposed rule contains collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), there are no provisions associated with this rulemaking constituting any new collection of information or any revisions to the existing collection of information. The collections of information for 38 CFR 38.730 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control numbers 4040-0004, 4040-0006, 4040-0007, and 4040-0013.
The Assistance Listing number and title for the program affected by this document are 64.204, Veterans Legacy Grants Program.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Claims, Crime, Grants programs—veterans, Veterans.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 31, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 38 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 107, 501, 512, 531, 2306, 2400, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2407, 2408, 2411, 7105.
The revisions read as follows:
(j)
(k)
The revisions read as follows:
When funds are available for VLGP grants, VA will publish a NOFO at
The revision reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Recipients are to be paid in accordance with 2 CFR 200.305.
(a)
The revision reads as follows:
Recipients must ensure that records are maintained and accessible in accordance with 2 CFR 200.334-200.338. Recipients must produce such records at VA's request.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening the comment period.
On June 26, 2024, EPA published a proposed rule titled, Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act in Variable Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioning Subsector, to allow one additional year for the installation of certain residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump variable refrigerant flow systems. The proposed rule did not include notice that the Agency would hold a public hearing if one were requested. This notice reopens the comment period specifically to provide an opportunity to request a public hearing on this rulemaking if one is desired.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on June 26, 2024, at 89 FR 53373, is reopened to allow for the opportunity to request a public hearing. To request a public hearing, please submit a comment per the instructions in the
If no public hearing is requested, the comment period will close on August 27, 2024. If a public hearing is requested, the comment period will close on September 26, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by docket identification number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Do not submit any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) through
For questions about this notice, contact Joshua Silver, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Protection (Mail Code 6205A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2473; email address:
The EPA is reopening the public comment period established in the
If a public hearing is requested and held, the comment period will remain open, as required by CAA section 307(d)(5), until September 26, 2024. If a
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please notify the person listed in the
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically by submitting the text of oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket. 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 testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
If you require the services of a translator or special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by August 19, 2024. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for Reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's proceeding by Maurine Molak and Matthew Molak.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 27, 2024. Replies to oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before September 6, 2024.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Molly O'Conor of the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Telecommunications Bureau, at
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3215, released August 2, 2024. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS is proposing to approve, and implement through regulations, measures included in Framework Adjustment 15 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan/Framework Adjustment 6 to the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan, which the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils jointly adopted and submitted to NMFS for approval. This action would establish area-based gear requirements for vessels fishing in the monkfish and spiny dogfish fisheries with gillnets in order to reduce bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon in these fisheries. This action is necessary to minimize bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon in the monkfish and spiny dogfish fisheries to the extent practicable and fulfill requirements of the Biological Opinion on Ten Fishery Management Plans in the Greater Atlantic Region and the New England Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2.
Public comments must be received by September 11, 2024.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2024-0082, by the following method:
•
Copies of the Framework 15/Framework 6 document, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis and other supporting documents for the measures, are available from Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950 and Chris Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The Framework 15/Framework 6 document is also accessible via the internet at:
Spencer Talmage, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9232.
The New England Fishery Management Council (New England Council) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Council) (collectively, the Councils) jointly manage the Monkfish and Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). The New England Council is the administrative lead for the Monkfish FMP, while the Mid-Atlantic Council is the lead for the Dogfish FMP.
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on May 27, 2021, that considered the effects of the authorization of two interstate fishery management plans (ISFMP) and eight Federal FMPs, including the Monkfish and Spiny Dogfish FMPs, on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species and designated critical habitat through a formal Section 7 consultation. The Biological Opinion determined that NMFS's authorization of the eight FMPs and two ISFMPs may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, Atlantic sturgeon. The Biological Opinion included an Incidental Take Statement and Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) with accompanying Terms and Conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon. The RPMs required that NMFS convene a working group to review all of the available information on Atlantic sturgeon bycatch in the federally permitted large-mesh gillnet fisheries and, by May 27, 2022, develop an Action Plan to reduce Atlantic sturgeon bycatch in these fisheries by 2024.
NMFS initially issued the Action Plan on May 26, 2022, and revised it on September 26, 2022 to incorporate feedback from the Councils and public. The Councils subsequently developed this joint framework action—Framework 15 to the Monkfish FMP and Framework 6 to the Dogfish FMP—to address the recommendations of the Action Plan and fulfill the requirements of the Biological Opinion. This Joint Framework would establish the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area, the Delaware and Maryland Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area, and the Virginia Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area (collectively, the Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Areas). Within these areas, the Joint Framework would:
• Require vessels fishing on a monkfish day-at-sea (DAS) within the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area to use low-profile gillnet gear, beginning on January 1, 2026;
• Prohibit dogfish vessels fishing in the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area from leaving gillnet gear in the water overnight during the months of May and November, effective 30 days from publication of the Final Rule; and
• Prohibit dogfish vessels fishing in the Delaware and Maryland Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area and Virginia Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area from leaving gillnet gear in the water overnight from November through March, effective 30 days from the publication of the Final Rule.
The measures being proposed in this Joint Framework Action are a set of area based-gear restrictions. To determine the location and spatial extent of “hot spots” where area-based gear restrictions would apply to the monkfish and spiny dogfish fisheries, observer data from these fisheries were summed across the years 2017-2019 and 2021-2022 (due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were very few observed trips in 2020). These observer data were stratified into squares, with each side being 10 minutes latitude or longitude. Boundary lines for the Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Areas were drawn such that the entirety of squares with the highest levels of observed bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon were completely encompassed by the area with a buffer of one mile (1.6 km), and squares of lower levels of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch were partially encompassed by the area being drawn in a manner that overlapped with observed Atlantic sturgeon bycatch on the edges of the hot spot area. The boundaries of these areas closest to the shoreline were clipped to the shore in order to extend the area requirements into state waters, where sturgeon are expected to be present. Offshore latitude and longitude points that comprised the resulting polygons were rounded to the nearest 0.05 or 0.1 of a minute to improve ease of compliance and enforcement.
Four distinct areas were identified via this methodology: One off the coast of Rhode Island/Southern New England; one off the coast of New Jersey; and two off the coasts of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. This action proposes gear requirements that would be in place within the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area, the Delaware and Maryland Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area, and the Virginia Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area. No measures are being proposed for the area off the coast of Rhode Island/Southern New England.
This framework action would require vessels fishing on a Monkfish DAS within the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area that are using large mesh (
• Mesh size ranging from 12 to 13 inches (30.48 to 33.02 cm);
• Net height ranging from 6 to 8 meshes tall;
• Net length of 300 feet (91.44 meters (m));
• Tie-down length of less than or equal to 30 inches (76.2 cm);
• Tie-down spacing of 12 feet (3.66 m);
• Primary hanging ratio of 0.50;
• Twine size of 0.81 millimeters (mm); and
• Tie downs at every float to keep the float line down.
These characteristics are intended to reduce interaction with Atlantic sturgeon by reducing the likelihood that Atlantic sturgeon high in the water column will become entangled, by allowing smaller sturgeon to swim through the larger mesh and allowing the larger sturgeon to break the mesh.
The proposed requirement to use low-profile gillnet gear within the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area would begin on January 1, 2026, as recommended by the Councils, to allow for the twine size to be considered under Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) provisions and to provide industry time to transition to new gear. The current definition of the low-profile gillnet gear would require a twine size of 0.81 mm; however, this conflicts with current Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) Regulations, which require that large-mesh gillnet gear in the waters off the New Jersey Management area have a twine size at least 0.9 mm in diameter from January 1 through April 30, except during April 1 through April 20 (50 CFR 229.34(b)(1)(ii)). The Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team (HPTRT) has been asked by the Councils to consider whether this requirement could be modified to reduce the twine size required in the HPTRP regulations. The process for making such a change, including the rulemaking process, would be expected to take approximately one year.
The low-profile gillnet design is a new gear configuration for a large majority of the fleet. The transition to the new gear will require construction of new nets, which may take time on the part of gear manufacturers, who are limited in number. Thus, the delay provides industry with the time necessary to acquire and familiarize itself with the new selective gear.
Within the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area, this action would require federally permitted spiny dogfish vessels fishing with roundfish gillnets (
In the Delaware and Maryland Sturgeon Bycatch Area and in the Virginia Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area, this action would require federally permitted spiny dogfish vessels fishing with roundfish gillnets (
Implementing an overnight soak restriction for these vessels in the Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Areas during these seasons is expected to reduce the amount of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch, but the amount of that reduction is not certain. Within these areas, the overnight soak prohibitions would effectively restrict the length of time gillnets could be soaked by dogfish vessels to a maximum of 15 hours. Bycatch mortality increases as soak time increases, and this restriction will cap soak time at levels where mortality is lower. As a result, the overnight soak prohibitions and the resulting reduction in overall soak time in the fishery are expected to greatly reduce the mortality of Atlantic sturgeon that are caught in nets within the Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Areas.
NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which provides specific authority for implementing this action. Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes NMFS to initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, and, if that determination is affirmative, publish the regulations in the
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish and Spiny Dogfish FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
As outlined in the preamble of this rule, the purpose of this action is to implement Framework 15 to the Monkfish FMP and Framework 6 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP. This Joint Framework would set area-based gear requirements for vessels fishing in the monkfish and spiny dogfish fisheries with gillnets in order to reduce bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon in these fisheries.
In 2022, there were 1,899 vessels with federal commercial spiny dogfish or monkfish permits. Each vessel may be individually owned or part of a larger corporate ownership structure, and for RFA purposes, it is the ownership entity that is ultimately regulated by the proposed action. Ownership entities are identified on June 1 of each year based on the list of all permit numbers, for the most recent complete calendar year, that have applied for any type of Northeast Federal fishing permit. The current ownership data set is based on calendar year 2022 permits and contains gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2020 through 2022. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination as to whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the five years from 2018 through 2022. There are no effects on for-hire fishing operations, which have a different threshold ($8.0 million).
Ownership data collected from permit holders indicate there are 1,406 distinct business entities that held at least one
In the 2020-2022 fishing years, 90-108 federally permitted vessels landed over 10,000 pounds (lb) of monkfish (measured in landed lb), with total monkfish landings ex-vessel revenues averaging $10.7 million (range $8.6-$12.2 million). For an individual vessel or dealer/processor however, monkfish may be a crucial part of their annual operations. Skates, groundfish, and other fish make up a substantial portion of revenues on trips using Monkfish DAS, so the ability to target monkfish also likely facilitates these other revenues as well. As a result, disruptions to targeted monkfish fishing can cause additional revenue losses tied to the other fish that are often retained on monkfish trips.
This action would require the use of a low-profile gillnet within an area off the coast of New Jersey, year-round. This requirement would not be implemented until January 1, 2026, which would provide affected entities the opportunity to prepare for the requirement, principally by purchasing nets that fit the specifications of the new design or by purchasing the materials necessary to build new nets. The cost of a 300 foot (91.44 meter) low-profile net panel is estimated to be $435, and the total costs per vessel will vary depending on the number of nets being replaced. Framework Adjustment 13 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (August 11, 2023, 88 FR 54495) estimated the range in the number of nets per vessel that might be replaced as a result of mesh size changes implemented by that action. Using that range, we estimate that per vessel cost to replace nets will range from $5,655 to $42,630. From 2018 through 2022, there were 22 vessels fishing out of ports in New Jersey that landed at least $1,000 of monkfish. Applying the per vessel costs to a fleet of 22 vessels results in a total fishery cost of $124,410 to $937,860. However, this figure is likely an overestimate because the count of 22 vessels included all ports in New Jersey, some of which will not be in the geographic footprint of the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area. Additionally, some vessels currently fishing within the footprint of the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area will choose to relocate their effort once restrictions are in place. Finally, for some, but not all, entities, the timing of the effectiveness of this rule will align with the end of the lifecycle of nets currently in use, so the costs to acquire the new nets would have been incurred regardless of this action for those entities. As a result, these short-term costs are not expected to be significant for the purposes of the RFA.
The gear research that informed the development of this action indicated no significant difference in monkfish catch rates off New Jersey with the proposed gear. As a result, it is not expected that this action would constrain the operations of the directed monkfish fishery compared to recent performance.
In the 2020-2022 fishing years, 9-87 federally permitted vessels landed over 10,000 lb of spiny dogfish (measured in live lb), with total spiny dogfish landings ex-vessel revenues averaging $2.5 million (range $2.3-$2.7 million). For an individual vessel or dealer/processor however, spiny dogfish may be a crucial part of their annual operations.
This action would seasonally require removal of spiny dogfish gillnets from the water in specified areas off the coast of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia overnight, from 8:00 p.m. ET to 5:00 a.m. ET each day. Though this would result in some modification of fishing behavior, this restriction is expected to minimally constrain the fishery compared to current practice. As a result, negative impacts, including economic impacts, associated with these measures are expected to be minimal. Both small and large entities firms are likely to be impacted equivalently under the proposed framework action.
Based upon the discussion in the immediately preceding paragraphs, this action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Negative impacts to small entities engaged in the monkfish or spiny dogfish fisheries by the proposed action are expected to be minimal, relative to status quo. The number of small entities that are significantly impacted is not substantial, and small entities will not be disproportionately impacted relative to large entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Fisheries, fishing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(m) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Fail to comply with the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area requirements specified at § 648.91(d).
(s) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv)
(d)
(2)
(i) A vessel is fishing on a monkfish-only DAS within the MA Exemption Area, defined at § 648.80(c)(5)(ii), with roundfish gillnets with a mesh size between equal to or greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) and less than 10 inches (25.4 cm).
(ii) A vessel is fishing with low profile gillnet gear, as defined in § 648.2.
(a)
(2) From May 1 through May 31 and November 1 through November 30 of each year, vessels issued a Federal spiny dogfish permit must remove gillnet gear with a mesh size equal to or greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) and less than 10 inches (25.4 cm) from within the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area from 8:00 p.m. eastern time each day through 5:00 a.m. eastern time the following day.
(b)
(2) From November 1 through March 31 of each year, vessels issued a Federal spiny dogfish permit must remove roundfish gillnets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 5.25 inches (13.3 cm) and less than 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the water within the Delaware and Maryland Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area from 8:00 p.m. eastern time each day through 5:00 a.m. eastern time the following day.
(c)
(2) From November 1 through March 31 of each year, vessels issued a Federal spiny dogfish permit must remove roundfish gillnets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 5.25 inches (13.3 cm) and less than 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the water within the Virginia Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area from 8:00 p.m. eastern time each day through 5:00 a.m. eastern time in the following day.
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S. Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on September 11, 2024. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions to be discussed at the 36th Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). The 36th Session of the CCFFP will be held through correspondence, from October 7-11 and 17, 2024. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 36th Session of the CCFFP and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2024, from 2-3 p.m. ET.
The public meeting will take place via Video Teleconference only. Documents related to the 36th Session of the CCFFP will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Ms. Melissa Abbott, U.S. Delegate to the 36th Session of the CCFFP, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For further information about the 36th Session of the CCFFP, contact U.S. Delegate, Ms. Melissa Abbott, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, United States Food and Drug Administration, by email at:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) are:
• To elaborate worldwide standards for fresh, frozen (including quick frozen), or otherwise processed fish, crustaceans, and molluscs.
The CCFFP is hosted by Norway. The United States attends the CCFFP as a member country of Codex.
The following items from the Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the CCFFP will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters arising from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies
• Information on activities of the FAO and WHO and other international organizations relevant to the work of CCFFP
• Proposed amendment of the
• Other business
At the September 11, 2024, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Ms. Melissa Abbott, U.S. Delegate to the 36th Session of the CCFFP, at
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S. Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on October 1, 2024. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions to be discussed at the 27th Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), which will meet in Omaha, Nebraska, from October 21-25, 2024. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 27th Session of the CCRVDF and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for October 1, 2024, from 2-4 p.m. ET.
The public meeting will take place via video teleconference only. Documents related to the 27th Session of the CCRVDF will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Dr. Jonathan Greene, U.S. Delegate to the 27th Session of the CCRVDF, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For further information about the 27th Session of the CCRVDF, contact U.S. Delegate Dr. Jonathan M. Greene, Biologist, Residue Chemistry Team, HFV 151, Division of Human Food Safety, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, by email at:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through the adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) are:
(a) to determine priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods;
(b) to recommend maximum levels of such substances;
(c) to develop codes of practice as may be required; and,
(d) to consider methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in foods.
The CCRVDF is hosted by the United States. The United States attends the CCRVDF as a member country of Codex.
The following items from the Provisional Agenda for the 27th Session of the CCRVDF will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters arising from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies
• Information on activities of the FAO and WHO and other international organizations relevant to the work of CCRVDF including JECFA
• Matters of Interest arising from the Joint FAO/International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Centre
• Matters of interest arising from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE), including the Veterinary International Conference on Harmonization (VICH)
• MRLs for veterinary drugs in foods arising from JECFA98 (2024)
• Extrapolation of MRLs for veterinary drugs in foods
○ Extrapolated MRLs for different combinations of compounds/commodities
○ Other matters related to the extrapolation of MRLs for veterinary drugs in foods to one or more species
• Criteria and procedures for the establishment of action levels for unintended and unavoidable carryover of veterinary drugs from feed to food of animal origin
• Coordination of work between the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and CCRVDF
• Priority list of veterinary drugs for evaluation or re-evaluation by JECFA
• Other business and future work
At the October 1, 2024, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Jonathan Greene, U.S. Delegate to the 27th Session of the CCRVDF, at
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Wyoming Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via Zoom at 1 p.m. MT on Tuesday, September 10, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's project,
Tuesday, September 10, 2024, from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. mountain time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
On April 9, 2024, Jubilant HollisterStier, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 224A, in Spokane, Washington.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Mark Flessner (the People's Republic of China (China)) at (202) 482-6312; Sean Grossnickle (India) at (202) 482-3818; Laura Delgado (the Republic of Korea (Korea)) at (202) 482-1468; Benito Ballesteros (Taiwan) at (202) 482-7425; and Rachel Jennings (Thailand) at (202) 482-1110, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of certain epoxy resins (epoxy resins) from China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On July 29, 2024, the petitioner
For the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e), Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days. As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations in the above-referenced investigations no later than November 6, 2024. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received scope ruling applications, requesting that scope inquiries be conducted to determine whether identified products are covered by the scope of antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) orders and that Commerce issue scope rulings pursuant to those inquiries. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are notifying the public of the filing of the scope ruling applications listed below in the month of June 2024.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Terri Monroe, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-1384.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3), we are notifying the public of the following scope ruling applications related to AD and CVD orders and findings filed in or around the month of June 2024. This notification includes, for each scope application: (1) identification of the AD and/or CVD orders at issue (19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)); (2) concise public descriptions of the products at issue, including the physical characteristics (including chemical, dimensional and technical characteristics) of the products (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(ii)); (3) the countries where the products are produced and the countries from where the products are exported (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(i)(B)); (4) the full names of the applicants; and (5) the dates that the scope applications were filed with Commerce and the name of the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS) scope segment where the scope applications can be found.
Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China (China) (A-570-082/C-570-083); wheels finished in Vietnam from Chinese wheel
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China (A-570-016/C-570-017); Temporary Spare Tires (Spare Tires);
This list of scope ruling applications is not an identification of scope inquiries that have been initiated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(1), if Commerce has not rejected a scope ruling application nor initiated the scope inquiry within 30 days after the filing of the application, the application will be deemed accepted and a scope inquiry will be deemed initiated the following day—day 31.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(m)(2), if there are companion AD and CVD orders covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, the scope inquiry will be conducted on the record of the AD proceeding. Further, please note that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m)(1), Commerce may either apply a scope ruling to all products from the same country with the same relevant physical characteristics, (including chemical, dimensional, and technical characteristics) as the product at issue, on a country-wide basis, regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer of those products, or on a company-specific basis.
For further information on procedures for filing information with Commerce through ACCESS and participating in scope inquiries, please refer to the Filing Instructions section of the Scope Ruling Application Guide, at
Please note that this notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings may be published before any potential initiation, or after the initiation, of a given scope inquiry based on a scope ruling application identified in this notice. Therefore, please refer to the case segment on ACCESS to determine whether a scope ruling application has been accepted or rejected and whether a scope inquiry has been initiated.
Interested parties who wish to be served scope ruling applications for a particular AD or CVD order may file a request to be included on the annual inquiry service list during the anniversary month of the publication of the AD or CVD order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(n) and Commerce's procedures.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this monthly list of scope ruling applications received by Commerce. Any comments should be submitted to Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to
This notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the People's Republic of China (China) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels identified in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.
On April 1, 2024, Commerce published the initiation of this sunset review
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Additionally, Commerce intends to rescind the review with respect to two companies.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Shane Subler or Rachel Accorsi, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6241 or (202) 482-3149, respectively.
In July 2023, Commerce received requests for an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CORE
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, we preliminarily determine that two companies (POSCO International and SeAH Steel Corporation) had no reviewable shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Absent any comments to the contrary from interested parties, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the administrative review of these companies in the final results of review.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the countervailing duty rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight-averaging the countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and
Because the rates for KG Dongbu Steel and Hyundai Steel are above
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022 to be:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies for which this review is rescinded, we will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP for these companies no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies remaining in the review, we will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends, upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all others rate applicable to the company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
These preliminary results are issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain producers/exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding the review, in part, with respect to 116 companies which had no entries in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Anne Entz or Ian Riggs, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3845 or (202) 482-3810, respectively.
On July 13, 2015, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) in the
The products subject to the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
On December 20, 2023, we notified all interested parties of our intent to rescind this review, in part, with respect to the 116 companies listed in Appendix III because there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by these companies during the POR and we invited interested parties to comment.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. We calculated export price and constructed export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the rate to be determined for companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
We preliminarily calculated a dumping margin of zero for one of the two mandatory respondents, Korea Wire Co., Ltd. (KOWIRE). Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned a dumping margin to the companies not selected for individual examination in this review based on the rate calculated for the other mandatory respondent, Nailtech Co., Ltd. (Nailtech).
We preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings, we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide, at the beginning of their briefs, a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because both respondents reported the entered value for their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by KOWIRE or Nailtech for which these companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to an intermediary (
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we intend to assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Companies Not Selected for Individual Examination” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies listed in Appendix III for which we are rescinding this review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue these rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and therefore,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain producers/exporters of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India during the period of review (POR) received countervailable subsidies from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. In addition, Commerce is rescinding the
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Stefan Smith or Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4342 or (202) 482-1395, respectively.
On July 1, 2002, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The merchandise covered by the Order is PET film. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Commerce received timely filed withdrawal requests with respect to five companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Additionally, Commerce's practice is to rescind an administrative review of a countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
On July 10, 2024, we issued a memorandum notifying parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to Cosmo First Ltd (Cosmo).
Commerce preliminary determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to interested parties within five days
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily determined subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies for which this review is rescinded with these preliminary results, we will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of the estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for the respective companies listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman). This review covers 18 exporters and producers from Oman. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. The sole mandatory respondent in this review is Oman Fasteners, LLC (Oman Fasteners). Commerce preliminarily determines that sales of subject merchandise have not been made below normal value (NV) by Oman Fasteners during the POR. We are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to one company for which all requests for review were withdrawn. We are also rescinding this review, in part, with respect to 16 companies which had no suspended entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Dakota Potts, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0223.
On July 3, 2023, Commerce published in the
On March 8, 2024, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce extended the due date for the preliminary results by 120 days until July 30, 2024.
A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by the scope of this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because all requests for administrative review of Gulf Nails LLC (Gulf Nails) were withdrawn by interested parties within 90 days of the date of the publication of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We calculated export prices and NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, respectively. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results of review,
We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margin to the sole company listed below for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations for the preliminary results of review to parties to the proceeding within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests for a hearing should contain: (1) the requesting party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of individuals associated with the requesting party that will attend the hearing and whether any of those individuals is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues that the party intends to discuss at the hearing. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review shall be based on the final results of the review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
We will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for Oman Fasteners in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Where either Oman Fasteners'
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which we are rescinding this review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i), not before 35 days after the publication date of these preliminary results.
Pursuant to a refinement to Commerce's assessment practice, where sales of subject merchandise that was produced or exported by an individually examined respondent were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by the respondent, but the merchandise was entered for consumption in the United States during the POR, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of such merchandise at the all-others rate (
The following cash deposit requirements will be in effect for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) were sold in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Jaron Moore or William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3640 or (202) 482-4868, respectively.
On July 25, 2016, Commerce published in the
On March 22, 2024, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review until July 30, 2024.
The merchandise covered by the
The products subject to the
7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we determined the weighted-average dumping margin for each of the non-selected companies by using the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for Dongkuk in this administrative review.
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing at a time and location to be determined.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Where an importer-specific
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any of the above-referenced respondents for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (as amended)
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to Tianjin Hweschun Fasteners Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Hweschun) a producer and exporter of certain collated steel staples (collated staples) from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period of review (POR) from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding the review with respect to 122 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Bob Palmer and Brandon James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
On July 20, 2020, Commerce published the countervailing duty (CVD) order on collated staples from China.
For a description of the events that occurred since the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the
On September 22, 2023, Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc. (the petitioner) withdrew its request for review with respect to 118 companies.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
Commerce preliminary determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period of January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Commerce also intends to issue a post-preliminary memorandum for certain programs after the publication of this notice.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). For the companies for which this review is rescinded, we intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
For Tianjin Hweschun, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. For Tianjin Hweschun, we intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends, upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for Tianjin Hweschun listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
These preliminary results are issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from the Republic of Korea (Korea) were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.
Applicable August 12, 2024.
Jerry Xiao, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2273.
On April 2, 2024, Commerce published in the
The products subject to the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
As discussed in the
We determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of research consortium.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, in support of efforts to develop standards for carbon dioxide removal, is establishing the Carbon Dioxide Removal Consortium (“Consortium”). The Consortium will bring together stakeholders to identify and address measurement and standards needs related to carbon dioxide removal used to reduce the overall atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The Consortium efforts are intended to develop measurement solutions and support the development of widely accepted standards to improve measurement confidence, measurement traceability and comparability of carbon dioxide removal through nature-based, enhanced nature-based, and engineered pathways, with an initial focus on forests and direct air capture. Participants will be required to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
The Consortium's activities will commence on Sept 1, 2024 (“Commencement Date”). NIST will accept letters of interest to participate in this Consortium on an ongoing basis.
Completed letters of interest or requests for additional information about the Consortium can be directed via mail to the Consortium Manager, Dr. Pamela Chu, Material Measurement Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8320, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, or via electronic mail to
J'aime Maynard, Consortia Agreements Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, by electronic mail to
There is a significant effort underway to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to transitioning to clean energy sources, increasing energy efficiencies, and deploying carbon capture, use, and storage, atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is being developed and deployed to compensate for remaining hard-to-abate emissions and work towards drawing down the current atmospheric CO
The initial focus of this consortium is to evaluate, develop, and standardize methods to characterize and quantify the carbon removal by (1) forests and (2) direct air capture. Test methods to specifically measure carbon in these systems will be explored. A later focus of the consortium will be to evaluate the suitability of current measurement standards for carbon removal in additional pathways prioritized by through stakeholder input and, where appropriate, develop new test methods needed to help build quality and confidence in the carbon removal marketplace. NIST and consortia partners will perform research together with the following four goals:
• Evaluate the suitability of current measurement approaches to quantify aspects of carbon dioxide removal.
• Validate the repeatability and comparability of the current measurement methods.
• Identify areas where measurements, models, and data should be expanded and enhanced to provide fit-for-purpose capabilities.
• Use these measurements as a foundation for test method(s) that can be standardized through a consensus-based standards development organization.
No proprietary information will be shared as part of the Consortium. Participants are expected to provide subject matter expertise and to actively participate in the consortium with the goal of developing measurement solutions to support the development of industry standards.
Eligibility to participate in the Consortium will be determined by NIST based on the information provided by prospective participants in response to this notice. NIST will evaluate the submitted responses from prospective participants to determine eligibility to participate in this Consortium. Consortium members are expected to contribute expertise related to carbon dioxide removal such as knowledge as a researcher, project developer, evaluator, purchaser, related experience, etc. that addresses the measurement, verification, and reporting of carbon dioxide removal. Prospective participants should provide a letter of interest with the following information to NIST's Consortium Manager:
(1) A description of their specific experience in or knowledge of carbon dioxide removal.
(2) List of interested party's anticipated project team and a contracts or legal contact for the CRADA.
Letters of interest must not include business proprietary information. NIST will not treat any information provided in response to this notice as proprietary information. NIST will notify each organization of its eligibility. In order to participate in this Consortium, each eligible organization will be required to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST. All participants in the Consortium that are legally permitted to enter into a CRADA will be bound by the same terms and conditions. Organizations that are legally prohibited or not legally authorized to enter into a CRADA may, at NIST's discretion, be permitted to participate in the Consortium under an agreement other than a CRADA with terms that will differ, as necessary, from the terms of the CRADA. NIST does not guarantee participation in the Consortium to any organization submitting a letter of interest.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine and Coastal Area-based Management Advisory Committee (MCAM). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined under
The meeting will be August 27-28, 2024 from 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held virtually on the Google Meets Platform. Registration is not required. Participants may join the meeting with the following:
Lauren Wenzel, Director, NOAA's National Marine Protected Areas Center,
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of MCAM. The MCAM was established in 2022 to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on science-based approaches to area-based protection, conservation, restoration, and management in coastal and marine areas, including the Great Lakes. The charter is located online at
The meeting time and agenda are subject to change. The meeting is convened to discuss the following topics: area-based management in the U.S.; effectiveness and outcomes of area-based management; how NOAA may best leverage area-based management investments, including Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act funds;
The meeting will be open to public comment (check agenda on the MCAM
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ellie Roberts at
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Space Weather Advisory Group (SWAG) will meet for three hours on September 13, 2024.
The meeting is scheduled as follows: September 13, 2024 from 11 a.m.-2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDT).
The public meeting will be a virtual event. For details on how to connect to the webinar or to submit comments, please visit
Amy Macpherson, National Weather Service, NOAA, 7220 NW 101st Terrace, Kansas City, MO 64153; 816-287-1344 or
Pursuant to the Promoting Research and Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow (PROSWIFT) Act, 51 U.S.C. 60601
The SWAG is directed to advise the SWORM on the following: facilitating advances in the space weather enterprise of the United States; improving the ability of the United States to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from space weather phenomena; enabling the coordination and facilitation of research to operations and operations to research, as described in 51 U.S.C 60604(d); and developing and implementing the integrated strategy under 51 U.S.C. 60601(c), including subsequent updates and reevaluations. The SWAG shall also conduct a comprehensive survey of the needs of users of space weather products to identify the space weather research, observations, forecasting, prediction, and modeling advances required to improve space weather products, as required by 51 U.S.C. 60601(d)(3).
The meeting will be open to the public. During the meeting, the SWAG will discuss the PROSWIFT Act, 51 U.S.C. 60601
The meeting will be held over three hours and will be conducted in a virtual manner (for meeting details see
This event is accessible to individuals with disabilities. For all other special accommodation requests, please contact
Public comments directed to the SWAG members and SWAG related topics are encouraged. For other written public comments, please email
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt; two permit applications and two permit modification requests to enhance the propagation and survival of endangered and threatened species.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received two direct take permit applications and two permit modification requests pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for research and enhancement purposes. The proposed activities are intended to enhance the survival of species listed under the ESA and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments should be submitted to: NMFS West Coast Region, 650 Capitol Mall, Room 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814. Comments may also be submitted via email to
The applications may be viewed online at:
Amanda Cranford, Sacramento, California (Phone: 916-930-3706, Email:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) proposes to reintroduce and bolster native fish populations in Big Chico Creek by translocating fishes from nearby waters. Several species have been extirpated from Big Chico Creek due to rotenone treatment that occurred between Higgin's Hole and Iron Canyon in 1986. Target native fishes include: Sacramento Sucker (
Fish will be captured using beach seines as much as is feasible, with the exception of Brook Lamprey, which will be captured using backpack electrofishing. Where beach seines are not effective or possible, CDFW will use minnow traps to capture fish. Fish will be inspected for parasites and any health concerns, and the anterior portion of their dorsal fins will be clipped for genetic analysis. Depending on size of fish collected, a Floy tag may be applied for the purposes of tracking movement within Big Chico Creek and assessing the success of translocations. Fish will be transported in oxygenated water to the receiving sites in Big Chico Creek. Receiving sites will be determined each year based on access, safety of crew, and locations of previous years' translocations.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) will deploy a Juvenile Salmonid Collection System (JSCS) in the McCloud Arm of Shasta Reservoir as part of a feasibility study to assess the reintroduction of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon above Shasta Dam. The primary purpose of JSCS deployment is to evaluate methods of juvenile salmon collection in head-of-reservoir conditions to support efforts to reintroduce the endangered population of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon to cold-water habitat above Shasta and Keswick dams.
The JSCS is a channel-spanning fish trap designed for head-of-reservoir conditions, and is comprised of a debris boom, guidance nets, fish trap and platform (live box, fykes, and decks), temperature curtain, and anchoring system. The JSCS is a passive system that does not rely on pumps or power, and instead leverages fish behavior and water velocities to capture juvenile salmon during outmigration before the fish enter the main body of the reservoir. The JSCS is intended to capture the experimental population of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon from Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (Livingston Stone NFH) reared and released at Ah Di Na on the McCloud River. DWR may sample a subsection of trapped salmon to assess their growth rates and condition. DWR may recover juvenile salmon carcasses during warmwater predator gut content analysis and will provide salvaged mortalities to CDFW and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). DWR will conduct mark-recapture studies with hatchery-raised juvenile Sacramento River winter-run or Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon to inform evaluation of trap efficiency and capture probability. DWR will provide all salmon captured at the JSCS to CDFW and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe for relocation and release.
This permit modification request is intended to support a suite of emergency actions under development by NMFS, CDFW, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to enhance the survival of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon. In 2023, the three remaining independent Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon populations in Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks experienced a cohort collapse. The primary purpose of Livingston Stone NFH is to conserve endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon. However, beginning in 2024, additional actions will be taken to conserve threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon that are incidentally captured during adult winter-run Chinook salmon broodstock collection activities.
USFWS proposes to trap, genetically identify, hold, and spawn a limited number of adult spring-run Chinook
The permit modification requested by CDFW will allow for the operation of RSIs in various Central Valley rivers. The use of RSIs is expected to enhance the survival of ESA-listed Chinook salmon by: (1) spreading the risk of adverse impacts to early life stages caused by drought conditions; (2) assessing the efficacy of RSI systems for potential use in any future reintroduction program efforts; and/or (3) studying the growth, survival, and outmigration timing of juvenile salmon in their historical habitat to inform long-term reintroduction planning. RSIs may be deployed and operated in the McCloud River using Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon eggs from Livingston Stone NFH. RSIs in Butte, Clear, Deer, and/or Mill creeks would utilize Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon eggs from adults incidentally captured at the Keswick Dam fish trap and spawned at Livingston Stone NFH.
CDFW also proposes to carry out monitoring and evaluation activities to assess the performance of reintroduction efforts in the McCloud River. Snorkel surveys may be conducted to monitor outmigration timing, juvenile distribution, and habitat use. Juveniles will be recaptured using rotary screw traps (or an alternative juvenile capture method, if determined necessary), which may include efficiency trials to expand fish counts to estimates of growth, survival and productivity of juveniles in the McCloud River. Habitat-associations will be assessed through snorkel surveys and/or backpack electrofishing at various locations in the McCloud River from Ah Di Na to Lake Shasta.
Scientific research and enhancement permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed extension of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 11, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by “OMB Control No. 3038-0007,” by any of the following methods:
• The CFTC website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method and identify that it is for the extension/renewal of Collection Number 3038-0007.
Catherine Brescia, Attorney Advisor, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, telephone: (202) 418-6236; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This information collection contains the third-party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements needed to ensure regulatory compliance by FCMs and IBs with these Commission Regulations.
With respect to the above collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation to, review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 11, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 11, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
The collected information will be used by State and local election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote or receive an absentee ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) is collected or retained by the Federal government. The FPCA is completed in hardcopy or via the Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) online assistant (
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 11, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
The collected information will be used by State and local election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote or receive an absentee ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the FWAB is collected or retained by the Federal Government. The FWAB is completed in hardcopy or via the Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) online assistant (
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (ED or Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for selection as a performance partnership pilot for fiscal year (FY) 2024 under the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3) authority.
Braden Goetz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A192, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-245-7405. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Full Text of Announcement.
Reengaging the more than 4.7 million young people in the United States who are neither working nor enrolled in school—and preventing other young people from joining them—is a national concern because their disconnection can have severe, long-term consequences.
Youth who drop out and never earn a high school credential have higher rates of unemployment, lower earnings, poorer health, and higher rates of mortality, and are more likely to be dependent on public assistance than those who earn a high school credential.
Youth whose completion of high school is delayed are significantly less likely to enroll in postsecondary education after they do earn their high
P3 may be a useful tool in preventing and effectively addressing youth disconnection. It gives ED, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Justice (DOJ),
P3 authorizes the Agencies to enter into Performance Partnership Agreements (performance agreements) with State, local, or Tribal governments. The performance agreements provide pilots with additional flexibility in the use of certain discretionary funds administered by the Agencies,
This notice invites applications for selection as FY 2024 pilots and offers opportunities for prospective applicants to obtain optional technical assistance from the Agencies prior to applying. The purpose of the pre-application technical assistance is to help prospective applicants identify and propose to address—through waivers, blending of funds, or other flexibilities—Federal barriers to effective and integrated service delivery that will improve the educational and employment outcomes of disconnected youth.
If interest in technical assistance exceeds the Agencies' capacity to provide it, the Agencies will give first priority to assisting eligible entities that intend to serve communities that have experienced civil unrest because the statutory authority for FY 2024 directs the Agencies to include such communities among the designated pilots. Second priority will be given to requests for technical assistance from applicants that propose to serve the highest numbers of disconnected youth.
P3 provides important opportunities to improve access to Federal programs and their effectiveness in addressing the needs of disconnected youth. It also may offer opportunities to States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to sustain successful innovations initially launched with funds under the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund. The Agencies have published on Youth.gov a list of the waivers previously granted to pilots under the first three rounds of P3 in which pilots were designated.
These examples are provided for illustrative purposes only, and the allowability of specific proposals will depend on the unique circumstances of individual applicants. Any waivers must be consistent with the statutory safeguards that apply to P3, discussed below, and the Agencies will consider whether the inclusion of a program in a specific pilot is consistent with, or conflicts with, other significant legal or policy considerations. Also, the Agencies will review the blending of competitive grants on a case-by-case basis to consider how the scope, objectives, and target populations of the existing awards align with the proposed pilot. Any changes in terms and conditions of the existing competitive grant awards required for pilot purposes must be justified by the applicant and consistent with the scope and objectives of the grantee's application. In addition, the Agencies can only waive Federal statutory or regulatory requirements and cannot waive State or local requirements. The Agencies encourage applicants to analyze whether implementation of their request also requires State or local statutory or regulatory flexibilities or waivers, as those rules are not under the jurisdiction of the Agencies to waive for P3.
Below are examples of ways eligible entities might use P3 to better serve disconnected youth:
Similarly, to expand mental health and well-being supports through comprehensive school-based mental health services, an LEA could blend funding from its ESEA Title IV, Part A subgrant and its FY 2024 continuation award for its School-Based Mental Health Services grant and braid
See also Katz, B. et al. (2022). Did Apprentices Achieve Faster Earnings Growth Than Comparable Workers? Findings from the American Apprenticeship Initiative Evaluation. Brief prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates; and Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from:
• Passing an independently administered ATB test approved by the Department;
• Completing at least six credit hours, or the equivalent coursework (225 clock hours), that are applicable toward a degree or certificate offered by the postsecondary institution; or
• Participating in a State process approved by the Department.
In addition to meeting one of the three alternatives, students must also enroll in an eligible career pathway program at their Title IV-eligible postsecondary institution.
Although P3 provides the Agencies broad waiver authority to increase flexibility and relieve burden in order to improve the effectiveness of Federal funding for disconnected youth, it is important to note that there are some limitations on the waivers. In particular, as stated in the original statutory authority for P3, the P3 waivers—
• May not involve any requirement related to nondiscrimination, wage and labor standards, or the allocation of funds to State and sub-State levels;
• Must be consistent with the statutory purposes of the Federal program for which such discretionary funds were appropriated;
• May not result in denying or restricting the eligibility of any individual for any of the services that (in whole or in part) are funded by the agency's programs and Federal discretionary funds that are involved in the pilot;
• Based on the best available information, may not otherwise adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of such services;
• Must be necessary to achieve the outcomes of the pilot as specified in the performance agreement, and no broader in scope than is necessary to achieve such outcomes; and
• Must result in either (a) realizing efficiencies by simplifying reporting burdens or reducing administrative barriers with respect to such discretionary funds; or (b) increasing the ability of individuals to obtain access to services that are provided by the discretionary funds.
P3 was reauthorized for FY 2024 for programs administered by all of the six Agencies, and the Agencies may select up to 10 pilots.
An applicant must propose to include FY 2024 funds from at least one of the six Agencies.
If Congress extends the P3 authority in future years, pilots may propose to amend the number of Federal programs supporting pilot activities using future funding appropriated. However, authority for pilots to expand in future years is subject to congressional action as well as agency discretion.
The application requirements for this opportunity are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program published on April 28, 2016, in the
(a)
(b)
The program requirement for this opportunity is from the P3 NFP.
(a) The length of the agreement;
(b) The Federal programs and federally funded services that are involved in the pilot;
(c) The Federal discretionary funds that are being used in the pilot;
(d) The non-Federal funds that are involved in the pilot, by source (which may include private funds as well as governmental funds) and by amount;
(e) The State, local, or Tribal programs that are involved in the pilot;
(f) The populations to be served by the pilot;
(g) The cost-effective Federal oversight procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of accountability for the use of the Federal discretionary funds;
(h) The cost-effective State, local, or Tribal oversight procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of accountability for the use of the Federal discretionary funds;
(i) The outcome (or outcomes) that the pilot is designed to achieve;
(j) The appropriate, reliable, and objective outcome measurement methodology that will be used to determine whether the pilot is achieving, and has achieved, specified outcomes;
(k) The statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements related to Federal mandatory programs that are barriers to achieving improved outcomes of the pilot; and
(l) Criteria for determining when a pilot is not achieving the specified outcomes that it is designed to achieve and subsequent steps, including:
(1) The consequences that will result; and
(2) The corrective actions that will be taken in order to increase the likelihood that the pilot will achieve such specified outcomes.
An
A
Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.
The U.S. Department of Education will implement the provisions included in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) final rule, OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, which amends 2 CFR
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
1.
2.
Please note the following:
• The Department is not publishing an application package for this program. To submit an application, provide all of the information specified in the application requirements. Additionally, complete and submit Standard Form 424B, Assurances for Non-Construction Programs (available at
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, including performance agreements, and may make all applications available, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600 (Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information), please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
5.
6.
• The Department must receive your application by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on October 11, 2024. We will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was received after the application deadline date.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
1.
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) will also consider compliance with assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance (such as, for ED programs, 34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
2.
3.
For each finalist, ED and any other Agencies implicated in the pilot will negotiate the performance agreement. If a performance agreement cannot be finalized for an applicant, an alternative applicant may be selected as a finalist instead. The recommended projects will be considered finalists until performance agreements are signed by all parties, and pilot designation will be awarded only after finalization and approval of each finalist's performance agreement.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected as a pilot, we will notify you.
2.
You may also access Department documents published in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 11, 2024.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-570-8414.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Lake Erie Connector Transmission, LLC (LEC Transmission or Applicant) has applied to amend Presidential Permit No. PP-412 to reflect a change in upstream ownership and related name change.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 11, 2024.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Janessa Zucchetto, (240) 474-8226,
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038. On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such permits was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office by Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On January 12, 2017, DOE issued Presidential Permit No. PP-412, authorizing ITC Lake Erie Connector to construct, connect, operate, and maintain a 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line at the international border between the United States and Canada. On March 29, 2024, LEC Transmission filed an application with DOE (Application or App.) requesting to amend Presidential Permit No. PP-412 to reflect a change in the upstream ownership from ITC Project Holdings, LLC to Lake Erie Holdings, LLC and related name change from ITC Lake Erie Connector to LEC Transmission. App. at 2.
According to the Application, on January 31, 2024, Lake Erie Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc. and direct, wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Transmission, LLC, “acquired 100 percent of the ownership interests in ITC Project Holdings, LLC, the indirect upstream owner of ITC Lake Erie Connector.”
Comments and other filings concerning LEC Transmission's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. PP-412-1. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Justin Moeller, NextEra Energy, Inc., 801 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 220 Washington, DC, 20004,
Before a Presidential permit may be issued, DOE must determine whether the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE will consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (
LEC Transmission's Application may be reviewed or downloaded electronically at
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 11, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Oluwatosin Fadarey, Attorney-Adviser (Labor), GC-63, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (240) 751-3745. Email:
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 6, 2024, by John T. Lucas, Deputy General Counsel for Business Transactions, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Northland Power and Energy Marketing (US) Inc. (NPEMUS or Applicant) has applied for renewed authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 11, 2024.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Janessa Zucchetto, (240) 474-8226,
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On July 18, 2019, DOE issued Order No. EA-473 to NPEMUS to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a period of five years. On June 21, 2024, NPEMUS filed an application (Application or App.) for renewal of its export authority for a five-year term. App. at 1.
According to its Application, NPEMUS is a power marketer “engaged in the purchase and sale of physical and financial energy commodities.”
NPEMUS represents that it “does not own or control electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities in the United States and does not hold a franchise or service territory or native load obligation within the United States or Canada.”
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning NPEMUS's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-473-A. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Elizabeth W. Whittle, Nixon Peabody LLP, 799 Ninth Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001,
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at
U.S. Department of Energy.
Rescindment of systems of records notices.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-108 and A-130, the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is publishing notice of rescindment for four existing Privacy Act systems of records. DOE proposes to rescind the following Privacy Act systems of records: DOE-12 Automated Materials and Property Systems (AMPS), DOE-21 Asset Readiness Management System (ARMS), DOE-59 Mailing Lists for Requesters of Energy-Related Information, and DOE-61 Census of High Energy Physicists. This notice will rescind these systems of records due to the systems' discontinuation of use by the Department.
The proposed modification to these existing systems of records will become effective without further notice on September 11, 2024 unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, and to Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm. 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585, by facsimile at (202) 586-8151, or by email at
Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm. 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585, by facsimile at (202) 586-8151, by email at
On January 9, 2009, DOE published a Compilation of its Privacy Act systems of records, which included Systems of
DOE-12 Automated Materials and Property Systems (AMPS), DOE-21 Asset Readiness Management System (ARMS), DOE-59 Mailing Lists for Requesters of Energy-Related Information, and DOE-61 Census of High Energy Physicists.
SORNs DOE-12, DOE-21, DOE-59, and DOE-61 were last published in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 6, 2024, by Ann Dunkin, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power or Applicant) has applied for renewed authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 11, 2024.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Janessa Zucchetto, (240) 474-8226,
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On July 18, 2019, DOE issued Order No. EA-475 authorizing Idaho Power to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of five years. On July 1, 2024, Idaho power filed an Application (Application or App.) for renewal of its export authority for a five-year term. App. at 1.
According to the Application, Idaho Power is “a regulated electrical power utility engaged in the business of generating, purchasing, transmitting, and distributing electrical energy.”
The Applicant states that it “buys and sells surplus energy pursuant to voluntary bilateral contracts with electric utilities and other suppliers within the United States.”
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning Idaho Power's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-475-A. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Lisa O'Hara, Idaho Power Company, 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702,
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at
Office of the Administrator, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of the Administrator, Office of the Executive Secretariat is giving notice that it proposes to modify a system of records pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. EPA-22, the agency's correspondence tracking system formerly known as the Correspondence Management System is being replaced by a new application called Quill, and the SORN is being further modified to include additional workflow processes and reflect corresponding updates.
Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by September 11, 2024. New or Modified routine uses for this modified system of records will be effective September 11, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2004-0003, by one of the following methods:
Director Eric Wachter, Office of the Executive Secretariat, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 564-4985; Email:
The EPA is updating EPA-22, its correspondence tracking and workflow management application and is replacing the legacy application with a new system called Quill. Quill is designed to track, route and store incoming and outgoing agency correspondence from and to members of the public, private, and governmental sectors. While correspondence processing is Quill's main function, other workflow processes will be tracked in this system as well, including Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) packages and inquiries submitted through the EPA's public-facing websites. EPA-22 is also being modified to reflect corresponding updates to the system, including system owner and location. (
Quill, EPA-22.
Unclassified.
Office of the Administrator, Office of the Executive Secretariat, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; the system is housed in the Microsoft Azure Cloud residing in the EPA's Office-365 Government Community Cloud (GCC), which is managed by Microsoft. These cloud locations are in the U.S. states of Virginia, Texas, Arizona, and Iowa. Paper records are maintained in the relevant EPA offices to which the correspondence was sent.
Quill System Administrator, Office of the Executive Secretariat, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: (202) 564-4985; Email:
5 U.S.C. 301 Departmental Regulations; 40 CFR, et. seq.; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
Quill is the EPA's correspondence tracking and workflow management application. The purpose of the system is to manage incoming and outgoing correspondence in all EPA program and regional offices. Quill makes the EPA more efficient in managing and responding to correspondence internally, with the White House, Congress, state and local governments and responding to the needs of the public in a timely manner.
Individuals who correspond with the EPA or any of its employees in their official capacity; all individuals to whom correspondence is addressed by the EPA or any of its employees in their official capacity; and individuals whose correspondence is referred or addressed to the EPA by the President, the Vice President, Congress, another federal agency, or state, tribal and local governments.
Name, title, organization, address, email and telephone number, as applicable and present in any correspondence addressed to or from the agency or any of its employees in their official capacity. Complete records may include metadata about the correspondence that facilitates tracking and record retrieval, a scanned image or electronic copy of the incoming communication, draft(s) of the response document, supporting documents or other attachments, and a scanned image or electronic copy of the outgoing signed response.
Sources include individuals who address correspondence to the agency or any of its employees in their official capacities; agency employees preparing responses to incoming correspondence or who generate original correspondence in their official capacities; and the White House and other federal, state, Tribal and local governments agencies that referred or addressed correspondence to the agency.
The routine uses below are both related to and compatible with the original purpose for which the information was collected. The following general routine uses apply to this system (86 FR 62527): A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M.
Additional routine uses that apply to this system are:
1. disclosure to another federal governmental agency when it is determined that a response by that agency is more appropriate than a response by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Electronic records are maintained on cloud storage devices and are stored in Microsoft Power Apps. Paper records are maintained in the relevant EPA offices to which the correspondence was sent.
All Quill records are full-text indexed and are retrieved by name, organization, physical address, email address, phone number or case number. The case number is the unique alphanumeric identifier for the individual set of documents and associated metadata for each communication or unit of work tracked in the system.
EPA-22 will retain and dispose of these records in accordance with EPA Records Schedule 0077. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Disposal Authority DAA-GRS-2016-0002-0001 requires that access and disclosure request files should be closed 6 years after final agency action or 3 years after final adjudication by the courts, whichever is later. Further, these records are to be destroyed after file closure. Additionally, NARA Disposal Authority DAA-GRS-2019-0001-0002 requires that “records tracking and controlling access to protected information” should be closed 2 years after last form entry, reply, or submission; when associated documents are declassified, decontrolled, or destroyed; or when an individual's authorization expires, whichever is appropriate. These records are to be destroyed after file closure.
Security controls used to protect personal sensitive data in Quill are commensurate with those required for an information system rated MODERATE for confidentiality, integrity and availability as prescribed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication, 800-53, “Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations,” Revision 5.
All requests for access to personal records should cite the Privacy Act of 1974 and reference the type of request being made (
Requests for correction or amendment must include: (1) the name and signature of the individual making the request; (2) the name of the Privacy Act system of records to which the request relates; (3) a description of the information sought to be corrected or amended and the specific reasons for the correction or amendment; and (4) proof of identity. A full description of the EPA's Privacy Act procedures for the correction or amendment of a record is included in the EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.
Individuals who wish to be informed whether a Privacy Act system of records maintained by the EPA contains any record pertaining to them should make a written request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Agency Privacy Officer, MC 2831T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, or by email at
None.
69 FR 60997 FR 30045 (October 14, 2004)
The following item has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Wednesday, August 7, 2024, Open Meeting. Item No. 4 was adopted by the Commission on August 5, 2024. The item was previously listed in the Commission's Sunshine Notice on Wednesday, July 31, 2024.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before October 11, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
On September 19, 2023, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 23-72, wherein it adopted several revisions to its Part 73 rules including 73.3700. As a result of these rule revisions, a number of collections and burdens were either revised or eliminated altogether as reflected in this revised supporting statement. Sections 73.3700(b)(4)(i) and (ii) and 73.3700(d) of the rules were eliminated and therefore the corresponding collections and burdens for these rules have been eliminated. Also, revisions were made to estimates for 73.3700(c), 73.3700(g)(4) and 73.3700 (h)(5) and (h)(6) to reflected updated data now that the incentive auction is complete and the exact universe of affected entities is known.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this document announces a new computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with the Virginia Department of Social Services. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of Lifeline, and the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), both of which are administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC. More information about these programs is provided in the
Written comments are due on or before September 11, 2024. This computer matching program will commence on September 11, 2024, and will remain in effect for a period of 18 months.
Send comments to Elliot S. Tarloff, FCC, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or to
Elliot S. Tarloff at 202-418-0886 or
The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit, or various Tribal-specific federal assistance programs.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2129-36 (2020), Congress created the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, and directed use of the National Verifier to determine eligibility based on various criteria, including the qualifications for Lifeline (Medicaid, SNAP, etc.). EBBP provided $3.2 billion in monthly consumer discounts for broadband service and one-time provider reimbursement for a connected device (laptop, desktop computer or tablet). In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 1238-44 (2021) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1751-52), Congress modified and extended EBBP, provided an additional $14.2 billion, and renamed it the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). A household may qualify for the ACP benefit under various criteria, including an individual qualifying for the FCC's Lifeline program.
In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, (81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016) (
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for ACP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of Lifeline and ACP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive SNAP and Medicaid administered by the Virginia Department of Social Services.
Virginia Department of Social Services (source agency); Federal Communications Commission (recipient agency) and Universal Service Administrative Company.
The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's ACP is 47 U.S.C. 1752(a)-(b). The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's Lifeline program is 47 U.S.C. 254(a)-(c), (j).
The purpose of this new matching agreement is to verify the eligibility of applicants and subscribers to Lifeline, as well as to ACP and other Federal programs that use qualification for Lifeline as an eligibility criterion. This new agreement will permit eligibility verification for the Lifeline program and
The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals who have applied for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; or are individuals who have received Lifeline and/or ACP benefits.
The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security Number, date of birth, and last name. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the Virginia Department of Social Services which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a qualifying assistance program: SNAP and Medicaid administered by the Virginia Department of Social Services.
The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline, which was published in the
The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the ACP system of records, FCC/WCB-3, Affordable Connectivity Program, which was published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States (Task Force) will hold its next meeting via live internet link.
September 18, 2024. The meeting will come to order at 3 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held via conference call and open viewing to the public and via live feed from the FCC's web page at
Emily Caditz, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 418-2268, or
The meeting will be held on September 18, 2024 at 3 p.m. EDT and may be viewed live, by the public, at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a new matching program
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this document announces a new computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of Lifeline, and the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), both of which are administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC. More information about these programs is provided in the
Written comments are due on or before September 11, 2024. This computer matching program will commence on September 11, 2024, and will remain in effect for a period of 18 months.
Send comments to Elliot S. Tarloff, FCC, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or to
Elliot S. Tarloff at 202-418-0886 or
The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2129-36 (2020), Congress created the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, and directed use of the National Verifier to determine eligibility based on various criteria, including the qualifications for Lifeline (Medicaid, SNAP, etc.). EBBP provided $3.2 billion in monthly consumer discounts for broadband service and one-time provider reimbursement for a connected device (laptop, desktop computer or tablet). In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 1238-44 (2021) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1751-52), Congress modified and extended EBBP, provided an additional $14.2 billion, and renamed it the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). A household may qualify for the ACP benefit under various criteria, including an individual qualifying for the FCC's Lifeline program.
In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, (81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016) (
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for ACP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of Lifeline and ACP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive SNAP and Medicaid administered by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration (source agency); Federal Communications Commission (recipient agency) and Universal Service Administrative Company.
The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's ACP is 47 U.S.C. 1752(a)-(b). The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's Lifeline program is 47 U.S.C. 254(a)-(c), (j).
The purpose of this new matching agreement is to verify the eligibility of applicants and subscribers to Lifeline, as well as to ACP and other Federal programs that use qualification for Lifeline as an eligibility criterion. This new agreement will permit eligibility verification for the Lifeline program and ACP by checking an applicant's/subscriber's participation in SNAP and Medicaid in Washington. Under FCC rules, consumers receiving these benefits qualify for Lifeline discounts and also for ACP benefits.
The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals who have applied for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; or are individuals who have received Lifeline and/or ACP benefits.
The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security Number, date of birth, and first and last name. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a qualifying assistance program: SNAP and Medicaid administered by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration.
The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline, which was published in the
The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the ACP system of records, FCC/WCB-3, Affordable Connectivity Program, which was published in the
Thursday, August 15, 2024, 10:00 a.m.
Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor) and virtual.
If you would like to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.
This meeting will be open to the public. To access the meeting virtually, go to the Commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040 or
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than August 27, 2024.
A.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of hybrid symposium.
GSA's Office of Technology Policy is hosting an Emerging Trends and Policy Symposium to bring the Federal, academia, and industry communities together for a series of presentations and a fireside chat to discuss trends and policies that foster innovation within the field of artificial intelligence.
Thursday, September 19, from 8 a.m. to noon, eastern time (ET).
All attendees, including industry partners, must register for the event here:
Members of the press are invited to attend but are required to register with the GSA Press Office via email to
GSA's Office of Technology Policy Front Office(
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly transforming industries, economies, and societies. The Federal Government aims to address the dynamic landscape of AI through informed policy discussions, ensuring these technologies are developed and deployed responsibly.
Emerging AI trends include machine learning advancements, natural language processing, applications in vehicles, drones, and robots, as well as the integration of big data.
Considerations to policy should be informed by ethical AI development, privacy and security, workforce impact, collaboration, and standardization while promoting innovation and acting ethically.
The Emerging Trends and Policy Symposium convenes leaders from the Federal Government, academia, and industry to discuss their experiences with artificial intelligence. The summit will include four presentations and a fireside chat panel discussion.
If you have questions for the panelists, you can email them to
ASL Interpreter will be in attendance online and in person. Zoom will have the option to enable closed captioning. If additional accommodations are needed, please note them on the Zoom Webinar registration form.
• Shawn Watson,
• Babur Kohy,
• Acquisition Approaches to Emerging Technologies
• Past, Present, and Future Possibilities of Government Adoption of AI
• A Generative AI Flexible Architecture Approach and Roadmap
• Artificial Intelligence Policy
Public Buildings Service (PBS), United States (U.S.) General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of availability (NOA); public notice of floodplain assessment and statement of findings; announcement of public hearing.
This notice announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which examines potential environmental impacts from the modernization and expansion of the Lynden and Sumas Land Ports of Entry (LPOE) in Lynden and Sumas, Washington. The existing Lynden and Sumas LPOEs are owned and managed by GSA and operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The Draft EIS describes the purpose and need for the project; alternatives considered; the existing environment that could be affected; the potential impacts resulting from each of the alternatives; and proposed best management practices and/or mitigation measures. The Draft EIS also includes a Floodplain Assessment and Statement of Findings due to the construction in a floodplain at the Sumas LPOE.
• Electronic comments should be submitted to the Lynden and Sumas LPOE email addresses listed below.
Please include `Lynden and Sumas LPOEs EIS' in the subject line of the message.
• Written comments on the EIS should be mailed to: ATTN: Patrick Manning, Capital Project Manager, Lynden and Sumas LPOEs EIS, U.S. General Services Administration, Northwest/Artic, Region 10, 1301 A Street, Suite 610, Tacoma, WA 98402.
Patrick Manning, Capital Project Manager, GSA at the Lynden and Sumas LPOE email addresses at
The views and comments of the public are necessary in helping GSA in its decision-making process regarding environmental, cultural, and economic impacts. Public comments will be solicited through an in-person public hearing; direct mail correspondence to appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, Tribes, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the project; and in local newspapers. The Draft EIS has considered previous input provided during the scoping period.
The public hearing will begin with presentations on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) processes, which are being executed concurrently for this project, as well as an overview of the proposed project, and then will continue with the findings of the Draft EIS. A copy of the presentation slideshow will be made available within days of the hearing at the GSA websites at
The existing 4.8-acre Lynden LPOE serves as the port of entry for people and vehicles connecting Lynden, Washington to Aldergrove, British Columbia, Canada. The LPOE currently operates 16 hours per day, 7 days per week and processes privately owned vehicles (POVs), buses, pedestrians, and permitted commercial traffic. The existing 4.0-acre Sumas LPOE serves as the port of entry for people and vehicles connecting Sumas, Washington to Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada. The LPOE operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and processes POVs, buses, pedestrians, and commercial traffic.
The purpose of these expansion and modernization projects is for GSA to support the CBP mission through modernizing and expanding the Lynden and Sumas LPOEs. Accomplishing this purpose would increase the functionality, capacity, operational efficiency, effectiveness, security, sustainability, and safety of the Lynden and Sumas LPOEs. The projects are generally needed to update the current facilities at the Lynden and Sumas LPOEs, which no longer function adequately and cannot meet CBP current operational needs or Program of Requirements. The existing Lynden and Sumas LPOEs have not undergone major improvements since their initial construction in the late 1980s and do not have sufficient space for modernization and expansion. Both facilities also have configuration and space issues that cause traffic, delays in processing times, and safety and security issues for inspection personnel. Additionally, these facilities do not have the ability to incorporate new technologies as they become available. The projects at the Lynden and Sumas LPOEs are analyzed jointly in this Draft EIS due to their proximity (approximately 10 miles) to one another. Operational changes at one of the two LPOEs could have impacts on the other LPOE, especially during construction. GSA has prepared a Draft EIS to assess the potential impacts of these expansion and modernization projects.
The EIS considers two action alternatives for the Lynden LPOE and three action alternatives for the Sumas LPOE, along with two construction sequencing options. GSA also considers the No Action Alternatives for each project location.
Action alternatives for the Lynden LPOE are described below.
Lynden Alternative 2 (East-West Oriented LPOE Expansion) would involve potential acquisition of primarily agricultural land to the west of the LPOE, site preparation, and construction to modernize and expand the LPOE. The maximum proposed limits of disturbance for Lynden Alternative 2 would be approximately 14.5 acres.
Lynden Alternative 3 (North-South Oriented LPOE Expansion) would include the same action as Lynden Alternative 2, with a difference of alignment. The maximum proposed limits of disturbance for Alternative 3 would be approximately 10.3 acres.
Action Alternatives for the Sumas LPOE are described below.
Sumas Alternative 2 (Feasibility Study Preferred Alternative) would involve potential acquisition of land south and east of the LPOE, site preparation, and construction to modernize and expand the LPOE. The maximum proposed limits of disturbance for Sumas Alternative 2 would be approximately 12.9 acres.
Sumas Alternative 3 (Commercial Inspection West) would include the same action and maximum proposed limits of disturbance as Alternative 2, with a difference of a “flipped” alignment of the commercial inspection facility.
Sumas Alternative 4 (Multi-Story Construction LPOE Expansion) would include the same action and maximum proposed limits of disturbance as Sumas Alternative 2, with a difference of multi-story Main Building being constructed.
Construction sequencing options are described below.
Under the Concurrent Construction option, both ports would remain open during construction. Pedestrian access would be maintained through the ports by utilizing and resetting, as necessary, various access and safety controls. POV access would also be maintained through both ports using various controls, which may require limits on the number of open processing lanes and shifting of POVs to commercial owned vehicle (COV) lanes for limited times. COVs may need to be detoured at times to other ports to permit adequate space for continued POV processing.
Under the Sequential Construction Option, GSA and CBP are considering the potential for closure of the Lynden LPOE. All traffic, pedestrians, POVs, and COVs would be detoured from the Lynden LPOE during the majority of its construction. Once the modernized and expanded Lynden LPOE is reopened, construction that impacts traffic would begin on the Sumas LPOE. The Sumas LPOE would remain open to pedestrians and POVs during construction to the greatest extent possible. COVs would be detoured from the Sumas LPOE to other LPOEs during portions of the construction period.
The Draft EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives on environmental resources including land use; water resources; biological resources; geology, topography, and soils; air quality, climate change, and greenhouse gases; human health and safety; infrastructure and utilities; traffic and transportation; noise and vibration; socioeconomics; and environmental justice and protection of children's health and safety. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIS, impacts to all resource areas would be less-than-significant (
GSA is currently undergoing formal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and consulting parties to follow coordination procedures as required under section 106 of the NHPA to determine impacts to historic properties. Mitigation measures may be determined in consultation between GSA, SHPO, and applicable consulting parties.
GSA is in the process of conducting informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to determine potential effects to federally protected species and migratory birds. GSA initiated consultation with the USFWS regarding the Lynden LPOE and Sumas LPOE and is awaiting USFWS responses and findings. Once received, USFWS responses and findings would be included in the Final EIS.
GSA coordinated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) via email concerning the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act conversion impact rating forms completed for both the Lynden and Sumas LPOEs and is awaiting NRCS responses and findings. Once received, the NRCS responses and findings would be included in the Final EIS.
The Sumas LPOE project area is located within the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain (also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood) and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (also referred to as the 500-year flood). In compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), GSA prepared a Floodplain Assessment and Statement of Findings addressing potential impacts on floodplains, which is included in the Draft EIS for public review and comment. As described in the Draft EIS, GSA would follow Federal, state, and local regulatory compliance requirements and incorporate design standards at the Sumas LPOE to minimize impacts to floodplains.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of availability—new common formats.
As authorized by the Secretary of HHS, AHRQ coordinates the development of common definitions and reporting formats (Common Formats or formats) for reporting on health care quality and patient safety. The purpose of this notice is to announce the availability of
Ongoing public input.
The
Dr. Hamid Jalal, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to 299b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act provides for the development of standardized reporting formats using common language and definitions to ensure that health care quality and patient safety
Since February 2005, AHRQ has convened the Federal Patient Safety Work Group (PSWG) to assist AHRQ in developing and maintaining the Common Formats. The PSWG includes major health agencies within HHS as well as the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The PSWG helps assure the consistency of definitions/formats with those of relevant government agencies. In addition, AHRQ solicits comments from the private and public sectors regarding proposed versions of the Common Formats through the Patient Safety Organization Privacy Protection Center (PSOPPC). After receiving comments, the PSOPPC solicits review of the formats by its Common Formats Expert Panel. Subsequently, PSOPPC will provide this input to AHRQ who then uses it to refine the Common Formats.
At AHRQ, the Common Formats for Surveillance—Hospitals (CFS-H) are applied in the Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS), a surveillance system designed to detect and calculate patient safety event rates through retrospective in-patient record review. QSRS uses the CFS-H Event Descriptions to create standardized specifications to ensure adverse events are reliability identified across all hospitals and records. For the Common Formats, it should be noted that AHRQ uses the term “surveillance” in this context to refer to the improved detection of events and calculation of adverse event rates in populations reviewed that will allow for collection of comparable performance data over time and across populations of patients. These formats are designed to provide, through retrospective review of medical records, information that is complementary to that derived from event reporting systems.
The
At this time, AHRQ is releasing the CFS-H Version 1.0 Event Descriptions and supporting materials, including an overview and user guide, tabular accounting, and technical release notes.
Comments can be provided on the
Additional information about the Common Formats can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a revision of the currently approved information collection project: “Patient Safety Organization Certification for Initial Listing and Related Forms, Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, and Common Formats.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 11, 2024.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
AHRQ requests that OMB approve a revision to AHRQ's collection of information for the Patient Safety Organization Certification for Initial Listing and Related Forms, Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, and Common Formats: OMB Control number 0935-0143, expiration September 30th, 2024.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (the Patient Safety Act), signed into law on July 29, 2005, was enacted in response to growing concern about patient safety in the United States and the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report,
In order to implement the Patient Safety Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule (Patient Safety Rule, 42 CFR part 3), which became effective on January 19, 2009. The Patient Safety Rule outlines the requirements that entities must meet to become and remain listed as PSOs, the process by which the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) will accept certifications and list PSOs, and provisions pertaining to the confidentiality and privilege protections for patient safety work product (PSWP).
When specific statutory requirements are met, the information collected and the analyses and deliberations regarding the information receive confidentiality and privilege protections under this legislation. The Secretary delegated authority to the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to interpret and enforce the confidentiality protections of the Patient Safety Act (
Pursuant to the Patient Safety Rule (42 CFR 3.102), an entity that seeks to be listed as a PSO by the Secretary must certify that it meets certain requirements and, upon listing, would meet other criteria. To remain listed for renewable three-year periods, a PSO must re-certify that it meets these obligations and would continue to meet them while listed. The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule also impose other obligations discussed below that a PSO must meet to remain listed. In accordance with the requirements of the Patient Safety Rule (see,
The following forms have revisions for clarification which are described below:
1. PSO Certification for Initial Listing—This form has been revised to include clarification on the role of the primary point of contact.
2. PSO Certification for Continued Listing—This form has been revised to include clarifications on the role of the primary point of contact, more precise language about whether there are any changes to the parent organization or any additional parent organizations and an additional note to clarify how users should determine the response to the standardized way they collect patient safety work product (PSWP).
3. PSO Profile form—The form has been revised to add a new clinical discipline, “Clinical Dialysis Services”.
4. PSO Change of Listing Form—This form has been revised to note clarifications for the parent and the point of contact sections.
5. PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form—This form has been revised to include a change from street to mailing address for future contacts with delisted PSOs.
6. Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form—The form has two parts, the complaint form and the consent form. The complaint form was updated (1) to conform the notice to individuals about confidentiality of identifying information submitted on the complaint form with the existing approved OCR HIPAA Rules complaint form and (2) to update OCR contact information. The consent form was updated (1) to conform notice to individuals about confidentiality of identifying information submitted on the consent form with the existing approved OCR HIPAA Rules consent form, (2) to more fully describe OCR authorities allowing collection of information in Privacy Act of 1974 notices, and (3) to update OCR contact information.
7. Common Formats—Since the last approval, AHRQ has released Common Formats Event Reporting for Diagnostic Safety, Version 1.0 (CFER-DS V1.0) and is planning on the release of Common Formats for Surveillance—Hospital V1.0 (CFS-H V1.0) in the near future, which is a revision/update from the last version (CFS-H V0.3 Beta).
OMB previously approved the Common Formats and forms described above in 2008, 2011, 2014, 2018, and 2021. AHRQ will use these forms, other than the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, to obtain information necessary to carry out its authority to implement the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule. This includes obtaining initial and subsequent certifications from entities seeking to be or remain listed as PSOs and for making the statutorily required determinations prior to and during an entity's period of listing as a PSO. The PSO Division, housed in AHRQ's Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, uses this information. OCR will use the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form to collect information for the initial assessment of an incoming complaint. The form is modeled on OCR's form for complaints alleging violations of the privacy of protected health information.
The PSO forms are available in a format that allows completion and submission of the information online. AHRQ has updated the electronic submission of all forms, except for the PSO Certification for Initial Listing and the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, which is administered by OCR, including the capability of the system to auto populate certain fields based on prior submissions by the PSOs. In addition, paper forms can be downloaded, completed and submitted through electronic mail, to
In addition to paper submission of complaints, OCR facilitates electronic submission of complaints. First, the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form is available on the OCR website at
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent to provide the requested information and Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to provide the requested information. The total burden hours are estimated to be 100,811.58 hours annually and the total cost burden is estimated to be $4,946,824.23 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public meeting, entitled “Advancing Rare
The public meeting will be held on October 16, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. Either electronic or written comments on this public meeting must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 31, 2024. See the
The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 (Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Bldg. 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit written comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Janet Goldberg, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911; or Cynthia Rothblum-Oviatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5390, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0957.
CBER and CDER are launching a CBER-CDER Rare Disease Innovation Hub (the Hub) to advance rare disease therapy development through greater communication, collaboration, and coordination across CBER and CDER, in coordination with other centers and offices across FDA. Helmed by senior leadership from CBER and CDER, the Hub will work to develop and implement a rare disease comprehensive cross-center strategic agenda that takes full advantage of our current clinical and scientific expertise across both centers and is based on a shared vision and comprehensive approach to (1) align review efforts; (2) identify and enable innovative approaches in the areas of novel endpoints, biomarker development, and innovative trial designs; and (3) streamline communications with the rare disease community.
The Directors of CBER and CDER (Directors) will lead the Hub, co-chairing the Rare Disease Innovation Hub Steering Committee, which will include senior leaders from CBER's Office of Therapeutic Products, CDER's Office of New Drugs, and across FDA, such as the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Oncology Center of Excellence, Office of Orphan Products Development, and Office of Combination Products. The Rare Disease Innovation Hub will leverage the activities of the CDER Accelerating Rare disease Cures program and CBER Rare Disease Program and enhance existing cross-center collaborations. In addition, the Hub will be anchored by the new Director for Strategic Coalitions for the Hub (Associate Director for Rare Disease Strategy), who will serve as a single point of connection and engagement with stakeholders on behalf of the Hub, including patient and caregiver groups, trade organizations, and scientific/academic organizations, on cross-cutting rare disease-related issues. The Directors will develop approaches to ensure appropriate FDA staff involvement or appropriate settings for further external engagement and will seek input from the community to inform the priorities of the Hub.
The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA will facilitate the public meeting. The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA is an independent 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization created by Congress to advance the mission of FDA to modernize medical, veterinary, food, food ingredient, and cosmetic product development; accelerate innovation; and enhance product safety. With the ultimate goal of improving public health, the Foundation provides a unique opportunity for different sectors (FDA, patient groups, academia, other government entities, and industry) to work together in a transparent way to create exciting new research and engagement projects to advance regulatory science.
This public meeting is being convened for FDA to provide information on the Rare Disease Innovation Hub, including its proposed priorities and initiatives, and to serve as an opportunity for those in the rare disease community, including patients and caregiver groups, industry organizations, and scientific/academic organizations, to provide input on the priorities of the Rare Disease Innovation Hub and how the Hub can best engage with members of the rare disease community. In particular, FDA is interested in receiving comments on the following:
1. What specific rare disease-related scientific, regulatory, or policy issues should be prioritized for consideration by the Rare Disease Innovation Hub?
2. To the extent the issues identified in response to Question 1 are related to specific types of rare diseases or conditions, please explain.
3. What specific types of rare disease-related activities do you believe would benefit from enhanced collaboration, focused attention, or increased transparency (to the extent legally permissible) under the Rare Disease Innovation Hub? Please identify in your comments rare disease-related activities or initiatives currently being undertaken by CDER or CBER that you believe would benefit from being undertaken by the Rare Disease Innovation Hub as a joint endeavor.
4. Please comment on approaches that the Rare Disease Innovation Hub should follow for engagement with patients and caregiver groups, industry organizations, and scientific/academic organizations (including different approaches for different types of engagement, as appropriate).
Comments will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 31, 2024.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register online by October 15, 2024, at 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lea Ann Browning-McNee, Director of Communication and Stakeholder Engagement, Reagan-Udall Foundation for FDA, 202-849-2075,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the following public meeting entitled “Development of an Enhanced Systematic Process for FDA's Post-Market Assessment of Chemicals in Food.” This public meeting will assist in developing the post-market chemicals assessment program we will establish under the new FDA Human Foods Program. The purpose of the public meeting is to hear from interested parties about approaches to systematic post-market assessment of chemicals in food.
The public meeting will be held on September 25, 2024, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2024-N-3609. The docket will close on December 6, 2024. Submit electronic or written comments on this public meeting by December 6, 2024. See “Participating in the Public Meeting” in the
The public meeting will be held virtually and with limited in-person attendance on the FDA White Oak campus. For more information on the public meeting, see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2024. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA endeavors to become more efficient, nimble, and prepared for the ever-changing and complex industries we regulate. In May 2024, FDA announced that we received approval for our reorganization proposal to create a unified Human Foods Program. These changes will allow us to more effectively realize the vision laid out in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, elevate the importance of nutrition, strengthen local, state, and international partnerships, and position FDA to regulate innovative food and agricultural products more effectively as we oversee the safety of the nation's food supply. One important goal of this reorganization is to have a modernized FDA that optimizes resources to help us meet our public health mission. FDA is planning to implement the reorganization on October 1, 2024.
As part of this reorganization, we are developing a systematic process for conducting post-market assessments of chemicals in food. Such an assessment includes ingredients considered generally recognized as safe, food additives, color additives, food contact substances, and contaminants. We are holding a public meeting to discuss this systematic process with interested parties to hear ideas and perspectives to inform our thinking and help us further develop a systematic process. The systematic process is intended to guide our post-market assessment work in the new Human Foods Program and will include a transparent process to help ensure post-market assessments are conducted consistently across chemicals and are prioritized based on the greatest public health needs, support confidence in the food supply, and ensure that our food safety efforts continue to reflect the most current and best available science.
The public meeting will address a variety of topics related to development of an enhanced systematic process for FDA's post-market assessment of chemicals in food, including:
• Principles for the post-market assessment process,
• Steps in the post-market assessment process,
• Prioritizing chemicals for post-market assessment, and
• Engaging stakeholders throughout the post-market assessment process.
For more meeting specifics, please see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal of a notice that was published in the
The notice is withdrawn on August 12, 2024.
Darren Eicken, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6206, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0978.
In a notice published in the
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
In the August 2, 2024,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on September 13, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public may attend the meeting at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The public will also have the option to participate, and the advisory committee meeting will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings, including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation, may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2024-N-3569. The docket will close on September 12, 2024. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before August 29, 2024, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jessica Seo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7699, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at the location of the advisory committee meeting and at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jessica Seo (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 11, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Joella Roland, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
A 60-day notice published in the
The February 2024 emergency ICR also included the Commercial Audit Compliance and Delinquent Audit Follow-up General and Targeted emails, which will continue to be used. These burden hours associated with these emails were erroneously left out of burden table in the 60-day notice and have been added back into the 30-day
Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of supplemental funding.
Per Congressional Report language accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, HRSA is awarding supplemental funds in FY 2024 to two Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network (RPPN) Program recipients to increase activities to coordinate among the Nation's pediatric hospitals and their communities to prepare for and coordinate research-informed responses to future pandemics. The current RPPN program period of performance ends on August 31, 2026.
Sara Kinsman, MD, Director, Division of Child, Adolescent & Family Health, Maternal & Child Bureau, HRSA, at
Funds will be used for project activities within the scope of the current awards (as announced in the funding opportunity HRSA-21-104) to improve everyday pediatric emergency readiness and pediatric pandemic preparedness. Supplements will provide for the expansion of activities within the current scope of the program to (a) increase partnerships with the communities they serve, including efforts to prevent and address disparities; (b) improve and expand pediatric emergency readiness and preparedness of pre-hospital emergency medical services, community emergency departments, and inpatient settings; and (c) accelerate real-time dissemination of research-informed pediatric care. The total amount provided through this supplemental funding to the two awardees will be $5,819,999, resulting in a total amount for each awardee of $11,358,048. Supplemental funding amounts per awardee differ in order to meet the congressional direction to achieve parity between the two awardees' total funding levels.
Projects approved by HRSA under this supplement are to be performed from the date of award through August 31, 2025. Supplemental funding for similar activities may be considered in future years, subject to the availability of funding for the activity and satisfactory performance.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of non-competitive extension with supplemental award.
HRSA is providing supplemental award funds to the award recipient under the Living Organ Donation Reimbursement Program. This action will extend the current period of performance for the recipient by 12 months to ensure continued access to lifesaving living organ transplants via the National Living Donor Assistance Center.
Arjun Naik, Public Health Analyst, Division of Transplantation, Health Systems Bureau, HRSA, at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than October 11, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0003 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than October 11, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2449, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2453, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting; request for comments.
CISA is publishing this notice to announce the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) meeting on August 27, 2024. The public can access the meeting via teleconference.
The meeting will be held via teleconference. For access to the teleconference, or to request special assistance, please email
•
•
A public comment period is scheduled to be held during the meeting from 2:15 to 2:25 p.m. EDT. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must email
Christina Berger, 202-701-6354,
The NSTAC is established under the authority of Executive Order (E.O.) 12382, dated September 13, 1982, as amended by E.O. 13286 and 14048, continued under the authority of E.O. 14109, dated September 30, 2023. Notice of this meeting is given under Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 10. The NSTAC advises the President on matters related to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications and cybersecurity policy.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Request for information.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeks public input on the Choice Neighborhoods (CN) grant program. The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to better understand the opportunities and barriers to applying for and subsequently managing Choice Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation Grants. HUD is especially interested in comments to reduce or eliminate barriers with the goal of improving the application process for all prospective applicants and expediting the expenditure of grant funds for awardees.
Comment Due Date: October 11, 2024. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
HUD invites interested persons to submit comments responsive to this RFI. All submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the RFI. Commenters are encouraged to identify the topic and number of the specific question(s) to which they are responding. Comments may include the name(s) of the person(s) or organization(s) filing the comment; however, because any responses received by HUD will be publicly available, comments should not include any personally identifiable information or confidential commercial information. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
Chris White, Neighborhood and Community Investment Specialist, Choice Neighborhoods Program, Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-402-5599 (not a toll-free number), email
Choice Neighborhoods is a competitive grant program focused on the revitalization of severely distressed public and/or HUD-assisted housing and the surrounding neighborhood. Since 2010, Congress has funded the Choice Neighborhoods Program through appropriations acts.
HUD awards two types of Choice Neighborhoods grants annually: Implementation Grants and Planning Grants. Implementation Grants provide Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), local governments, and tribal entities up to $50 million to replace severely distressed HUD-assisted housing with new, high-quality, mixed-income housing. Implementation Grants also fund companion investments in the surrounding neighborhood and resident supportive services. Planning Grants provide PHAs, local governments, Tribal entities, and nonprofits up to $500,000 to create a community-driven “Transformation Plan” that addresses the program's “Housing, People, and Neighborhood” goals (see FY2023 Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)
The Choice Neighborhoods NOFOs outline the program's three core goals and objectives.
• Well-Managed and Financially Viable. Developments that have budgeted appropriately for the rental income that can be generated from the project and meet or exceed industry standards for quality management and maintenance of the property.
• Mixed-Income. Housing that is affordable to families and individuals with a broad range of incomes including low-income, moderate-income, and market rate/unrestricted.
• Energy Efficient, Climate Resilient, and Sustainable. Housing that has low per unit energy and water consumption and is built to be resilient to local disaster risk and other climate impacts.
• Accessible, Healthy, and Free from Discrimination. Housing that is well-designed, meets federal accessibility requirements and embraces concepts of visitability and universal design, has healthy indoor air quality, has affordable broadband internet access, and is free from discrimination.
• Effective Education. A high level of resident access to high-quality early learning programs and services so children enter kindergarten ready to learn and quality schools and/or educational supports that ultimately prepare students to graduate from high school, college- and/or career-ready.
• Income and Employment Opportunities. The income of residents, particularly wage income for non-elderly/non-disabled adult residents, increases over time.
• Quality Health Care. Residents have increased access to health services and have improved physical and mental health over time.
• Housing Location, Quality, and Affordability. Residents of the target housing who, by their own choice, do not return to the development have housing and neighborhood opportunities as good as or better than the opportunities available to those who occupy the redeveloped site.
• Housing Quality and Variety. The neighboring housing has a lower vacancy/abandonment rate, is high quality and well-maintained, and has an appropriate mix of rental and homeownership units to meet resident needs. The neighborhood better supports families with a broad range of incomes.
• Economic Opportunity. The neighborhood attracts and maintains a diverse mix of businesses and employers to create meaningful jobs and economic opportunities for residents, respond to local needs, and address long-term disinvestment.
• Community Assets and Amenities. The neighborhood includes community amenities found in higher opportunity areas, such as grocery stores and fresh food options, retail goods and services, financial institutions, medical and health facilities, parks and greenspace, public transit, high-quality early learning programs, and high performing public schools.
• Community Confidence. The neighborhood image reflects a healthy, livable, and equitable community that honors its history and embraces a positive outlook for the future. There is an enhanced sense of place and a visibly improved built environment. Long-term residents choose to stay and have the support to do so, and new residents likewise choose to live in the revitalized neighborhood.
• Public Safety. Residents feel safer in their homes and spending time in the revitalized community and the neighborhood has lower crime rates than prior to redevelopment.
This RFI seeks input from the public regarding the opportunities and barriers to applying for and subsequently implementing Choice Neighborhoods grants. Information from this RFI may be used to improve the NOFOs and application submission process for Choice Neighborhoods. HUD may also consider information gathered under this RFI to simplify or streamline certain non-regulatory requirements or processes for Choice Neighborhoods grantees. Therefore, HUD is especially interested in comments to reduce or eliminate barriers during the application and award implementation process and/or during the grant performance period.
Information will also be used to inform marketing strategies to promote the Choice Neighborhoods program to eligible applicants. HUD is particularly interested in expanding the program's reach to communities of all sizes, including large urban areas, mid-sized cities, small towns, rural areas and tribal jurisdictions. Therefore, HUD is interested in feedback from a diversity of stakeholders to ensure the program is accessible to these groups during the application period, and that they are positioned for success post award.
To better understand applicant and grantee experiences with Choice Neighborhoods, this RFI is seeking comments on program NOFOs, application requirements, post-award grant requirements, and additional considerations on the program's goals and their alignment with existing needs across different communities. To assist HUD in its review of the comments received, the Department categorizes its questions into the following topics: A. Pre-Award: Application Experience and NOFO Requirements; B. Post-Award: Program Experience and Requirements; and C. General. Public comments outside of these topics are also welcome. For each topic, questions present the types of stakeholder insights and information related to the Choice Neighborhoods Program that the Department requests, as applicable.
1. Please describe your or your organization's experience, if any, with the current Choice Neighborhoods Planning or Implementation grant application process or program. Are you representing a current grantee, past applicant, industry group, or partner?
2. If you previously applied for a Choice Neighborhoods grant, what worked well through the application process? Are there any rating factors or requirements in the Planning or Implementation Grants NOFOs that are particularly important to maintain?
3. Are there any Choice Neighborhoods application requirements in Planning or Implementation Grants NOFOs that are unnecessary or complicated, and could be streamlined or removed? Please provide any recommendations for how such requirements should be revised. Be specific.
4. Are there any Choice Neighborhoods application or NOFO requirements that make an application difficult or impossible? If you consider the size of your city or community as a factor, please indicate and describe how.
5. Do you have difficulty understanding any portion or section of the Choice Neighborhoods NOFOs or program requirements? Are there particular areas that you feel could be articulated more clearly or in plain English?
6. What steps can HUD take to support applicants through the planning, preparation, and submission of an application? Example suggestions could include public briefings, NOFO webinars, marketing/promotional materials in plain English, and other publicly available materials.
7. If you have ever considered applying for a Choice Neighborhoods Planning or Implementation Grant and elected
8. For Tribal Entities, are there specific requirements in the NOFO which make it challenging for you to apply for a grant?
9. For Tribal Entities, are there inconsistencies among the housing, people or neighborhood goals and objectives of the Choice Neighborhoods program, as outlined in the NOFO, and the goals and objectives of your tribe, which impact your ability to apply for and receive a Choice Neighborhoods grant?
10. Are there any program goals, processes, policies, or requirements that are working well? Are there any processes or requirements with the Planning or Implementation Grants that are particularly important to maintain?
11. Are there any Choice Neighborhoods program requirements affecting Planning or Implementation grantees that are unnecessary or complicated, and could be streamlined or removed? (
12. Are there any processes that, if streamlined, would allow grantees to meet funding deadlines and thus expedite grant outcomes (
13. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the day-to-day
14. How does the Choice Neighborhoods' core “housing” goal of creating a mixed-income community fit with your local housing goals?
15. Does your community have significant barriers to any of the Choice Neighborhoods' housing objectives or program requirements? Are there any housing goals or requirements that are particularly burdensome?
16. How does the Choice Neighborhoods' core “people” goal fit with your community's supportive services, human capital, or resident engagement goals? Are there any people goals or requirements that are particularly burdensome?
17. Does the Choice Neighborhoods' core “neighborhood” goal fit with your community's neighborhood improvement goals? Are there any neighborhood goals or requirements that are particularly burdensome?
18. How did you hear about the Choice Neighborhoods program (
19. If you received a Choice Neighborhoods Planning or Implementation grant, would you recommend that others apply? Why or why not?
20. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions about the Choice Neighborhoods program implementation or application selection.
Thank you for participating in this request for information. HUD looks forward to reviewing all responses received.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior
Notice of official filing.
The plat of survey of the following described lands is scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of land Management (BLM), Eastern States Office, Falls Church, Virginia, 30 days from the date of this publication. The survey, executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Region, is required for the management of these lands.
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat described in this notice will happen 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Written notices protesting the survey must be sent to the State Director, BLM Eastern States, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 22041.
Frank D. Radford, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Eastern States; (703) 558-7759; email:
The plat, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 7 and 18, the metes and bounds survey of lands held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians in sections 7 and 18, the survey of the meanders of the right bank of the Pearl River in section 18, and the metes and bounds survey of an access easement in section 18, Township 11 North, Range 10 East, was accepted on April 18, 2024.
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your notice of protest or statement of reasons, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A copy of the described plats will be placed in the open files, and available to the public, as a matter of information.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Wesleyan University has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is no lineal descendant and no Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Wendi Field Murray, Wesleyan University (Archaeology & Anthropology Collections), Exley Science Building, 265 Church Street, Middletown, CT 06459, telephone (860) 685-2085, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Wesleyan University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 16 individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The remains of these 16 individuals were once part of an osteological teaching collection, which included human skeletal elements that had been prepared and used for anatomical instruction sometime between the 19th and 20th centuries. In August 2013, any human remains in the osteological teaching collection that showed evidence of having been disinterred (visible soil/staining, water damage, and weathering) rather than mechanically cleaned/prepared by a medical supply vendor or other entity were presumed to be Native American. Wesleyan has no records suggesting their geographic origin or acquisition history.
The presence of potentially hazardous substances (
There is one documented instance of pest fumigation relating to the collections that dates to 1972-1973. This was to treat a silverfish infestation in underground storage rooms that held the museum's objects after it closed. The proposal was for the application of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) to the floors, the placement of open containers of paradichlorobenzene (PDB) around the room, and the placement of a mildew-retarding insecticide inside the wraps of museum specimens. The specific contents of the room in which the chemicals were applied, and to what extent they were shielded from them, is unknown.
Invitations to consult were sent to the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe; Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut; and the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Invitations to consult were also sent to the following non-federally recognized Indian groups: Brothertown Indian Nation; Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation; Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Nation; and the Schaghticoke Indian Nation. The Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut responded to the invitation and participated in consultation. Other Indian Tribes and/or groups either chose to defer, participated in preliminary phone calls, or did not participate.
No information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains in this notice are available. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:
1. No earlier group connected to the human remains.
2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization connected to the human remains.
3. No relationship of shared group identity between the earlier group and the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that can be reasonably traced through time.
Wesleyan University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 16 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human remains in this notice has been identified.
• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains described in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Wesleyan University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Wesleyan University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to any consulting lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
June Carpenter, NAGPRA Director, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7820, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Field Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains are hair clippings belonging to two individuals, identified with the tribal designation “Yankton” (Field Museum catalog numbers 193213.1 and 193213.4). Field Museum staff believe they were collected under the direction of Franz Boas and Frederick Ward Putnam for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The hair clippings were accessioned into the Field Museum's collection in 1939. No information regarding the individual's name, sex, age, or geographic location has been found. There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains.
The Field Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows,
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Field Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 9, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a bag of cremated ceramic potsherds. In 1985 the UCR Archaeological Research Unit was hired to assess several archaeological sites along Highway 111 in La Quinta, Riverside County for the Desert Sands Unified School District ahead of potential grading. During their pedestrian survey the archaeologists assessed archaeological sites CA-RIV-1180, CA-RIV-1980, CA-RIV-1981, and CA-RIV-1982. They observed cremated human remains on the surface of CA-RIV-1980 and contacted the chairman of a Cahuilla band, who advised that the remains should not be disturbed. The archaeologists did, however, collect some pottery sherds that were found in association with the cremation.
The one object of cultural patrimony is a large ceramic olla. In the Winter of 1972, Dr. Wilke of the University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Research Unit discovered a large ceramic olla containing a cache of decomposed honey mesquite beans in an unnamed canyon in the Mecca Hills between Thermal and Painted Canyon. The olla was discovered in archaeological site CA-RIV-519, which was a windswept rock-shelter affected by years of rain and erosion. Wilke decided to remove the olla to prevent further damage or possible looting by amateur pothunters. Radiocarbon analysis of the mesquite beans indicated a date of 200 +/− 100 years old. This approximate time period corresponds with the US Land Offices Survey recording of at least five Cahuilla villages situated near the base of the Mecca Hills.
The University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Torrez Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 9, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK), Department of Anthropology, have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Ms. Livia Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PMA-C, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone (402) 995-2434, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Mercer County, ND. The human skeletal remains include one adult that was removed from the Rock Village site (32ME15). Site investigation began in 1947 with Marvin F. Kivett and later in 1950 extensive excavations were directed by G. Ellis Burcaw. The site is a fortified earthlodge village that has been identified as belonging temporally to the Knife River Phase (A.D. 1780-1845). No known individuals were identified. There are no associated funerary objects.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Sioux County, ND. The human skeleton remains include one adult that was removed from the Paul Brave site (32SI4), also known as the Fort Yates site. In 1947, the University of North Dakota and the State Historical Society of North Dakota co-sponsored archeological work in the upper limits of the Oahe Reservoir, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir in North Dakota. Test excavations at 32SI4 were included in the work done during this project. The site was investigated a second time in 1955, under the sponsorship of the State Historical Society of North Dakota. No known individuals were identified. There are no associated funerary objects.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 25 individuals were removed from Sioux County, ND. The human skeletal remains include eight adults, four adult females, eight adult males, and five children that were removed from the Boundary Mounds site (32SI1). These individuals were removed in 1960 by Robert W. Neuman as part of a Smithsonian River Basin Survey project and were sent by the State Historical Society of North Dakota to William Bass. It is likely this occurred while Bass was at the University of Kansas and he later brought the individuals with him to University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). The Boundary Mounds site is a Middle Woodland site with four burial mounds that has been identified as a Sonota Complex site dating between A.D. 1-A.D. 600. No known individuals were identified. The 44 associated funerary objects are one rock, six timber fragments, seven lithics, and 30 faunal bones.
Human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from Campbell County, SD. The human skeletal remains include one infant, one non-adult, and four adults that were removed from the Anton Rygh site (39CA4). During the summers of 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1973, human remains were removed from site 39CA4 under the direction of William Bass. Post-excavation, Bass transferred the human remains to the University of Kansas. In 1971, Bass transferred the human remains to UTK. Site 39CA4 is a large, multi-component earth lodge village, part of the Plains Village Tradition. It is a fortified village site covering around 11-12 acres. At least two occupations are suggested by archeological evidence. The first occupation dates to the Extended Middle Missouri period (A.D. 1000-1500), while the second occupation dates to the Extended Coalescent (A.D. 1500-1675) and Post Contact Coalescent (A.D. 1675-1780) periods. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a faunal bone.
Human remains, representing, at minimum 15 individuals were removed from Campbell County, SD. The human skeletal remains include nine adults, three young adults, and three children from the Helb site (39CA208). These individuals had been loaned to the Smithsonian Institution by Marvin Kay and were returned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2024. The site was identified in 1966 by J.J. Hoffman, David Evans, Donald J. Lehmer, and William M. Bass and excavated in the early 1970s. The site is a fortified village site dating to the Extended Middle Missouri period (A.D. 1150-1550). No known individuals were identified. The 21 associated funerary objects are faunal remains.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Charles Mix County, SD. The human skeletal remains include one adult male that was removed from site 39CH212. This individual was removed on an unknown date and transferred to the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center. Sometime between 1987-1988, this individual was transferred to UTK for inventory and then transferred back to SARC. However, UTK retained a portion of this individual. Site 39CH212 dates to the Woodland period (1500 B.C.-AD. 900). No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a soil sample.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Corson County, SD. The human skeletal remains include two infants removed from the Potts Village site (39CO19) in the late 1980s and subsequently stored at South Dakota's State Archaeological Research Center (SARC). In 1988, these human remains were transferred by SARC to UTK for inventory and were retained by UTK. The site is a fortified earth lodge village dating to the Extended Coalescent Period (A.D. 1550-1675). No known individuals were identified. The 271 associated funerary objects are faunal remains.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Lyman County, SD. The human skeletal remains include one adult individual that was removed from the Langdeau site, 39LM209. This individual was likely removed from the site during excavations in the 1960s. The site is an earthlodge village that has been dated to the Initial Middle Missouri period (A.D. 1000-1100). No known individuals were identified. The four associated funerary objects are faunal remains.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from the Second Hand site (39PO207) Potter County, SD. The circumstances of the removal of this individual are not well-known. This individual may have been one of eight burials that were reported as being exposed by local residents, reburied, and then subsequently collected by William Bass in 1962. The site was likely identified during surveys by W.R. Farrell and Jake Hoffman in 1952. The chronology of the site is unknown. No known individuals were identified. There are no associated funerary objects.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Stanley County, SD. The human skeletal remains that include one adult were removed from the Buffalo Pasture Cemetery site (39ST216). This individual was likely remobed in 1955 when burials of several individuals were uncovered during fill dirt removal. William Bass examined these burials in 1957. The site was a medium-sized fortified village believed to be dated to the 18th century. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from an unknown site in Stanley County, SD. The human skeletal remains include on adult female. This individual was removed from a borrow pit north of Oahe Dam at an unknown archaeological site as part of the Missouri River Basin Project and loaned to Bass at the University of Kansas by the State Historical Society of North Dakota. This individual was likely transferred to UTK by Bass in the late 1960s or early 1970s when he began working for UTK. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Walworth County, SD. The individual is a child that was removed from the Larson site (39WW2) on an unknown date. Sometime prior to 1971, these human remains were transferred to William Bass at the University of Kansas. In 1971, Bass took these human remains to UTK. Archeological evidence places the Larson site in the Post-Contact Coalescent period (A.D. 1675-1780). Many excavations have taken place at this fortified village site, since the late 1890's, under the direction of L. De Lestry, W.H. Adams and W.H. Casler, W.H. Over, Alfred W. Bowers, J.J. Hoffman and William Bass. No known individuals were identified. There are no associated funerary objects.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Walworth County, SD. The individuals include an adult male and an adolescent that were removed from the No Road site (39WW48). These individuals were removed from the site in 1983 and were sent to William Bass at UTK. Little is known about the site, but from observed lithic materials, the site is likely to represent a Pre-Plains village occupation. No known individuals were identified. There are no associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 59 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 394 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Ms. Livia Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PMA-C, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone (402) 995-2434, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Ancestral remains representing at minimum one individual were removed from site 25KX71 in Knox County, Nebraska. The Ancestor was discovered during a 1982 survey of the Gavins Point Dam and Lewis & Clark Lake that was conducted by Wichita State University with Donald Blakeslee as the Principal Investigator. The 38 associated funerary objects are one snail shell, one chert flake, one chalcedony stone fragment, five sandstone fragments, two nodules of brown pigment, and 28 faunal bone fragments. The Ancestor and associated funerary objects are currently housed at the History Nebraska curation facility in Lincoln, Nebraska. No known potentially hazardous substances have been used to treat the Ancestor or associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The 38 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the New York State Museum (NYSM) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230, telephone (518) 486-2020, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the New York State Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains are from the Bates site, Chenango County, NY and were acquired in 1957 through excavations conducted by Dr. William A. Ritchie of the NYSM.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are three carbonized textile fragments, six samples of carbonized cordage fragments, four samples of fire-reddened clay, and one sample of carbonized organic material. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the White site, Chenango County, NY, in 1974 and donated to the NYSM by the family of Mr. Stanford Gibson in 2009.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains were removed from the Bronck site, Madison County, NY, in the 1970s and donated to the NYSM by the family of Mr. Stanford Gibson in 2009.
Human remains representing, at least, eight individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains were removed from the Diable site, Madison County, NY, in 1986-1987 and donated to the NYSM by families of Dr. Alexander Neill in 2007, Mr. Daniel Weiscotten in 2008, and Mr. Stanford Gibson in 2009.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains were removed from the Marshall site, Madison County, NY, in 1988 and donated to the NYSM in 2007 by the family of Dr. Alexander Neill.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The 193 associated funerary objects are 118 very small purple disk shell beads, 72 very small white disk shell beads, two glass beads, and one Job's Tear seed bead. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the vicinity of Munnsville, Madison County, NY, prior to 1889 and given to Rev. William M. Beauchamp. They were donated to the NYSM by his daughter, Mrs. Grace B. Lodder in 1949.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains are from the vicinity of Utica, Oneida County, NY, and were donated to the NYSM by Mr. George C. Hodges in 1934.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains were removed from the Washburn site, St. Lawrence County, NY, during an archaeological survey conducted in 1954 by Dr. William A. Ritchie of the NYSM.
Human remains representing, at least 17 individuals have been identified. The 24 associated funerary objects include one Brewerton type projectile point, 12 small mica flakes, 10 soil samples, and one pottery rim sherd. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Clark site, St. Lawrence County, NY, during excavations conducted in 1954 by Dr. William A. Ritchie of the NYSM.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. The 22 associated funerary objects are one groundstone celt, one groundstone celt fragment, and 20 pottery sherds. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Pine Hill site, St. Lawrence County, NY, and donated to the NYSM in 1958 by Mr. Lester Laird.
Human remains representing, at least two individuals have been identified. The 22 associated funerary objects are 22 small black glass beads. The human remains and associated funerary objects were found during gravel mining on the William Walker Farm, St. Lawrence County, NY, and donated to the NYSM by Mr. William Walker in 1952.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The New York State Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 36 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 275 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Oneida Indian Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the New York State Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The New York State Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 9, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been reasonably identified. The 21 associated funerary objects are three lots of unmodified animal bone, one lot of modified animal bone, three lots of ceramic sherds, three lots of lithic materials, three lots of shell beads, one lot of grinding stones, two lots of charcoal, two lots of other organic materials, one lot of floral materials, and two lots of unmodified shells.
In 1976 the cremated remains of at least two Native American individuals were removed from archaeological site CA-RIV-1171 by members of the University of California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit (UCR-ARU). The site was in the Indian Wells area near La Quinta in Riverside County, California. The archaeologists were contacted by the property owner of the Indian Wells Mobile Home Estates to assess the 40-acre area for potential impact to archaeological resources during a proposed development of the dune area on the southwest portion of the property. During an initial examination of the dunes the archaeologists noted the presence of at least two human cremations on the surface as well as scatters of other objects like pottery sherds, lithic flakes, fish bone, and mussel shells. The archaeologists inferred that the site was occupied around the last stand of Ancient Lake Cahuilla around 500 years ago based on the presence of the fish bone and associated pottery types. The collection from the project was housed at UCR under accession number 54. Although the archaeologists noted the presence of human cremations in the dunes, human remains were not identified in the collection until decades later during consultation with a Cahuilla band and an osteologist. The tribal representatives also identified approximately 1,400 associated funerary objects including unmodified and modified animal bone, ceramic sherds, lithic flakes, shell beads, charcoal, other organic materials, and unmodified shells. The osteologist identified human remains representing at least one adult and one juvenile individual; no known individuals were identified.
In 1989 the University of California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit (UCR-ARU) was hired by J.F. Davidson and Associates to conduct a pedestrian survey of 375 acres of property in the central Coachella Valley near Indio, Riverside county, California. During the surface survey a human cranial fragment was noted by archaeologists in addition to potsherds and other cultural materials. Five archaeological sites were documented during the project, but only the site where the human remains were noted, CA-RIV-3793, was recommended for further mitigation. In 1990 the UCR-ARU was then contracted again to conduct test excavations. During the excavations several human bone fragments were removed from the site, but were misidentified as animal bone. The collections were housed at UCR under accession number 154. In 2024 during a NAGPRA consultation, the remains were identified as one human infant tibia and one human juvenile canine tooth. Tribal representatives also identified associated funerary objects including ceramics, lithics, shell beads, animal bone, floral and other organic materials, and unmodified shell.
In 1993 human remains representing at least one Native American individual were removed from archaeological site CA-RIV-150 in Riverside County. The remains were uncovered during the grading of an area within Washington Square in La Quinta ahead of planned development. CA-RIV-150 is a well-known archaeological site, which was first recorded in 1933 by archaeologists. It is also well known to Cahuilla bands as a large village complex occupied by their ancestors. Charcoal samples from the project were sent to Beta Analytics for radiocarbon dating, which indicated an approximate date of A.D. 1430 to A.D. 1530. During the project, bone fragments were removed from Feature 3 of the site and were examined later at the LSA Associates Inc. laboratory where they were identified as human. Arrangements for reburial were made with one of the monitoring tribes and the remains and some associated funerary objects were returned in 1993. The remainder of the collection was subsequently curated at the University of California, Riverside under accession numbers 40 and 216. In 2024, during a NAGPRA consultation, an osteologist identified additional human remains that were misidentified as faunal in 1993. Tribal representatives also identified associated funerary objects in the collection.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 21 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California; Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 9, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Wesleyan University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Wendi Field Murray, Wesleyan University, 265 Church Street, Exley Science Building (Archaeology & Anthropology Collection), Middletown, CT 06459, telephone (860) 685-2085, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Wesleyan University and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least nine individuals have been identified. The one associated funerary object is a string of blue and black beads. Based on records, their storage organization when found, and tribal consultation, all are presumed to originate in the Middlesex County/Portland/Indian Hill area.
According to Wesleyan's catalog records, some of these individuals' remains were likely taken from the property of Frank Gladwin on June 14th, 1899 while digging a trench for a water pipe in the dooryard of his residence, and would have come into Wesleyan's collection with a large donation from the estate of local collector Charles H. Neff in the late 1920s or early 1930s. Charles Neff was a prolific local collector who did his collecting from the mid-19th century through the early 20th century. Neff's looting of Native American graves in the area is historically documented in archives and his own personal journal, and Indian Hill in Portland was known to contain Native American (Wangunk) burials that were frequently disturbed. Indian Hill is historically documented to have been a burial place for the Wangunk people, who lived in the area until ca. 1765.
Attribution of the remains to Neff's collecting at Indian Hill is based upon the fact that (1) Wesleyan received a large (but poorly inventoried) donation of local archaeological materials from Neff in the 20th century, (2) his collecting often included human remains, and (3) a description of the Gladwin property discovery in Neff's journal listed the number of individuals and skeletal elements present that correspond to some of the remains from CT that are currently held by Wesleyan.
The beads likely correspond to the string of beads Neff describes in his collecting journal (1927) in which he describes the remains of a Native American woman that had been exposed after heavy rains on the property of George Conklin. A string of beads was reportedly found wrapped several times around her arm, some of which he kept for his collection.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The 58 lots of associated funerary objects comprise archaeological debris, stone bifaces (complete and broken), Mansion Inn type projectile points (complete and broken), unidentified projectile points (complete and broken), stemmed projectile points, notched projectile points, projectile point fragments, oblong or rod-shaped groundstone tools, smooth/flat groundstone implements (complete and broken), miscellaneous groundstone fragments, stone flakes, unidentified stone cobbles and fragments, quartz cobble fragments, chert cobble fragments, sandstone fragments, sandstone tools, stone axes (complete and broken), stone adzes (complete and broken), stone pestles (complete and broken), stone pestle fragments, grooved stone tools (complete and broken), hammerstones (complete and broken), limonite raw material, hematite raw material, stone scrapers, stone knife/blades, unspecified chipped stone tools (complete and broken), stone drills (complete and broken), stone drill fragments, burned nuts, seeds, and botanicals, burned animal bone fragments, fire-cracked rock, charcoal/ash, one teardrop-shaped rubbing stone, one black, shiny stone object, one chunk of burned stone, one complete steatite vessel, one broken steatite vessel, one pumice-like stone tool, one drilled groundstone tool, one micaceous stone fragment, one pointed groundstone tool, and one micaceous groundstone tool.
The human remains and funerary objects were excavated from the Griffin Site in Old Lyme, CT by a Wesleyan graduate student in 1979. Interpreted as a Terminal Archaic (3500 B.P) cremation site (Susquehanna Tradition), it was accidentally discovered during construction work on the property owner's home in 1975 which prompted the salvage excavation. The property owner donated the collection to Wesleyan in 1980, after which the objects were cataloged, refit, photographed, and analyzed for the completion of a master's thesis. Many objects show evidence of spalling, breakage, and degradation by extreme heat or fire. Features were interpreted as receptacles for cremated remains and objects. Fragments of human remains (human metatarsal and phalanx; and possibly two human teeth) were identified in “Feature F” in the site report. All features had bone fragments incorporated into the ash and charcoal, though the severity of the heat exposure made most of them unidentifiable.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The remains were taken from an unknown location in Niantic, CT by an unknown collector some time prior to 1972. They were donated to Wesleyan in 1972 by Dr. Leonard M. Lasser of Windsor, CT. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The four associated funerary objects are quartz stone tools. The dates of their collection, acquisition, or provenance are unknown. Some of the remains are labeled “Clinton” while others are labeled “Sebonac” and “BUR II.” All appear to be from the same male individual. “Sebonac” likely refers to the Sebonac focus of the Late Woodland period (ca. AD 900-1500), an archaeological cultural designation
The presence of potentially hazardous substances (
There is one documented instance of pest fumigation relating to the collections that dates to 1972-1973. This was to treat a silverfish infestation in underground storage rooms that held the museum's objects after it closed. The proposal was for the application of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) to the floors, the placement of open containers of paradichlorobenzene (PDB) around the room, and the placement of a mildew-retarding insecticide inside the wraps of museum specimens. The specific contents of the room in which the chemicals were applied, and to what extent they were shielded from them, is unknown.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Wesleyan University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 63 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Wesleyan University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Wesleyan University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 3, 2024, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by August 27, 2024.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 3, 2024. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
Nomination(s) submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination(s) and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination(s) and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Ms. Livia Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PMA-C, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone (402) 995-2434, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 53 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 53 unassociated funerary objects are one dentalium shell, one charcoal fragment, and 51 faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Boundary Mounds site (32SI1) in Sioux County, ND in 1960 by Robert W. Neuman as part of a Smithsonian River Basin Survey project. The unassociated funerary objects were then sent by the State Historical Society of North Dakota to William Bass. It is likely this occurred while Bass was at the University of Kansas and he later brought the unassociated funerary objects with him to University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The Boundary Mounds site is a Middle Woodland site with four burial mounds that has been identified as a Sonota Complex site dating between A.D. 1-600.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a faunal
A total of eight cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The eight unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the McKensey Village site (39AR201) in Armstrong County, SD. The objects were likely removed in during excavations in 1960 that were directed by Warren. W. Caldwell. Site 39AR201 has been identified as an Extended Middle Missouri site (A.D. 1150-1550).
A total of 127 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 127 unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Potts Village site (39CO19) in Corson County, SD. The objects were likely removed in the late 1980s and subsequently stored at South Dakota's State Archaeological Research Center (SARC). In 1988, these objects were transferred by SARC to UTK and were retained by UTK. The site is a fortified earthlodge village dating to the Extended Coalescent Period (A.D. 1550-1675).
A total of 67 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 67 unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Swift Bird Mounds site (39DW233). The site was first investigated in 1952 as part of the Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys and was later excavated between 1960-1962. The site consists of two burial mounds and an earthlodge village with several temporal components including Woodland (1500 B.C.-A.D. 900) and Extended Middle Missouri (A.D. 900-1700).
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Bleached Bone site (39HU48) in Hughes County, SD. Investigations at the site occurred in 1931 when Alfred Bowers removed eleven burials from a previously looted mound at 39HU48 and in 1962 by the Missouri River Basin Project (MRBP) in 1962, during which field crew 10, directed by William Bass, removed an additional 13 burials. The site included stone circles, mounds, and other configurations. Woodland Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000) pottery was reportedly found during the 1962 season. In addition, the presence of a metallic projectile point suggested possible occupation during the Historic Period.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a faunal remain. The unassociated funerary object was removed from the Hickey Brothers site (39LM4) in Lyman County, SD. The object was likely removed during 1958 excavations directed by Bernard Golden and crews from the Smithsonian Institution's River Basin Surveys. The site was fortified with evidence of an earthlodge and has been identified as a possible Extended Middle Missouri site (A.D. 1150-1550).
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the C.B. Smith site (39SL29) in Sully County, SD. The site was excavated in 1957 by Charles H. McNutt and crews from the Smithsonian Institution's River Basin Surveys. The site was a large earthlodge village that has been identified as being occupied during the Extended Middle Missouri (A.D. 1150-1550).
A total of 49 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 49 unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Zimmerman site (39SL41) in Sully County, SD. The site was excavated in 1958 by Charles H. McNutt and crews from the Smithsonian Institution's River Basin Surveys. The site had several long, rectangular houses and has been identified as an Extended Middle Missouri site (A.D. 1150-1550).
A total of 72 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 72 unassociated funerary objects are faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Larson site (39WW2). This site was investigated several times throughout the 1960s and it is unknown at what time the objects were removed from the site. The site was a fortified village site that has been identified as being occupied in the Post-Contact Coalescent period (A.D. 1675-1780).
A total of 12 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 12 unassociated funerary objects are five lithics and seven faunal remains. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from the Walth Bay site (39WW203) in Walworth County, SD. The site was excavated between 1970 and 1972 with W. Raymond Wood as the Principal Investigator. The site has been dated to the Extended Coalescent period (A.D. 1350-1620).
No known hazardous substances were used to treat any of the cultural items described in this notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District has determined that:
• The 394 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the New York State Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 11, 2024.
Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230, telephone (518) 486-2020, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the New York State Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 13 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 13 unassociated funerary objects are two bone awls or pins, two antler pressure flakers, two mica flakes, five fragments of carbonized textile, and one fragment of carbonized cordage from the White site, Chenango County, NY, donated by the family of Mr. Stanford Gibson in 2009; and one brass kettle from the vicinity of Verona, Oneida County, NY, acquired from Mr. Dwinel F. Thompson in 1914.
The New York State Museum has determined that:
• The 13 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Oneida Indian Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 11, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the New York State Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The New York State Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 54) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an unopposed motion for termination of the investigation as to respondents ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”) based on settlement. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On July 27, 2023, the Commission instituted this investigation, based on a complaint filed by Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Complainant”) of Chicago, Illinois. 88 FR 48493-494 (Jul. 27, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices and semiconductor devices having wireless communication
The investigation was terminated as to Qualcomm, Laird, and NXP and as to the '914 and '862 patents based on withdrawal of the complaint.
Respondents MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. were terminated from the investigation based on settlement.
On July 9, 2024, Complainant moved to terminate the investigation as to ASUS based on settlement. Complainant provided both confidential and public versions of the settlement and license agreement with its motion. OUII filed a response supporting the motion. No other party filed a response.
On July 16, 2024, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 54) granting the motion to terminate ASUS. The ID found the motion complies with the Commission Rules. ID at 1-2. The ID also observed that termination of this investigation as to ASUS based on settlement will not adversely affect the public interest.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The last remaining respondents, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, are terminated from the investigation based on settlement. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 6, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to grant in part a joint motion to terminate this investigation in view of a settlement agreement. Specifically, the Commission has determined to grant the motion to terminate but denies the request to reconsider its previous determination not to review and take no position with respect to the unreviewed issues addressed in the final initial determination (“FID”). This investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On January 24, 2023, the Commission instituted the above-captioned investigation based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan (“Realtek”). 88 FR 4205-06 (Jan. 24, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges that respondent Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (“AMD”) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C 1337, by importing into the United States, selling for importation, or selling within the United States after importation certain integrated circuits, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,936,245 (“the '245 patent”); 8,006,218 (“the '218 patent”); or 9,590,582 (“the '582 patent”). The complaint alleges that a domestic industry exists. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in this investigation.
The presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a claim construction (
On June 20, 2023, AMD moved to preclude Mr. Steve Baik, Realtek's outside counsel, from testifying as a fact witness in the evidentiary hearing. On July 7, 2023, the ALJ issued Order No. 19, ordering AMD to show cause why Winston & Strawn (“Winston”), AMD's counsel, should not be disqualified due to an alleged conflict of interest. Order No. 19 at 2 (July 7, 2023).
On August 4, 2023, the ALJ held a teleconference with the parties regarding Mr. Baik and Winston. On August 17, 2023, the ALJ issued Order No. 23, which granted AMD's motion to preclude Mr. Baik from testifying on behalf of Realtek but did not disqualify Winston. Order No. 23 at 1 (Aug. 17, 2023). On August 24, 2023, the ALJ denied Realtek's motions for reconsideration and for interlocutory review of Order No. 23. Order No. 24 (Aug. 24, 2023). On September 6, 2023, Realtek filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) seeking a writ of mandamus to order the ALJ to vacate the ruling striking Mr. Baik. The Federal Circuit denied the petition on September 25, 2023.
On October 16, 2023, the ALJ issued an order regarding AMD's motion to sanction Realtek for failing to accurately answer certain interrogatories and produce relevant documents regarding Realtek's earlier litigations against Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte., Ltd and Broadcom Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Order No. 39 (Oct. 16, 2023). Order No. 39 determined Realtek had engaged in sanctionable acts during discovery, but deferred ruling on AMD's sanctions motion until after the hearing. The ALJ ultimately sanctioned Realtek for discovery misconduct.
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from October 16-20, 2023.
On November 14, 2023, the Commission terminated the investigation as to claim 9 of the '582 patent and claim 14 of the '218 patent, based on Realtek's withdrawal of those claims. Order No. 40 (Oct. 20, 2023),
On January 19, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued a combined FID and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“RD”). The FID finds no violation of section 337 for any of the three patents at issue because: (i) asserted claims 1, 2, and 8 of the '245 patent are infringed but invalid as anticipated; (ii) asserted claims 12, 13, and 15-18 of the '218 patent are infringed but invalid as obvious; (iii) asserted claims 1-4 of the '582 patent are not infringed, while claims 1-3 (but not claim 4) are also invalid as obvious; and (iv) Realtek failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any of the three asserted patents. FID at 252. The FID also finds that Realtek satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for each patent.
On February 2, 2024, Realtek and AMD each filed petitions for review of certain adverse findings in the FID. Realtek, however, did not petition for review of the FID's finding that the asserted claims of the '245 patent are invalid. On February 12, 2024, Realtek and AMD filed their respective responses to the opposing petitions for review.
On June 11, 2024, the Commission determined to review the FID in part. 89 FR 51366-70 (June 17, 2024) (“WTR Notice”). In particular, the Commission determined to review the FID's findings on claim construction, infringement, and anticipation or obviousness of the asserted claims of the '218 patent and '582 patent, the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, and the sanction against Realtek. The Commission did not review, and thus adopted, the FID's findings that the asserted claims of the '245 patent are invalid, that the claims of the '218 patent are not invalid for lack of written description or enablement, that the claims of the '518 patent are not invalid for lack of written description, that Mr. Baik was properly precluded from testifying as a fact witness at the evidentiary hearing, and that Winston should not be disqualified from representing AMD. The Commission included a briefing schedule for the issues under review and remedy, bond, and the public interest.
On June 19, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation due to a settlement agreement and to suspend the Commission's briefing schedule. The parties also requested that the Commission reconsider its previous determination not to review certain findings in the FID and, on review, take no position on any findings.
On June 27, 2024, the Commission determined to suspend briefing on the issues under review and on remedy, bond, and the public interest, pending resolution of the parties' motion to terminate.
On July 26, 2024, the parties corrected their joint motion by replacing the original, overly redacted public version of their term sheet with a version that was properly redacted in compliance with Commission Rules 201.6(a), 210.21(b), 19 CFR 201.6(a), 210.21(b).
Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to terminate the investigation due to the settlement agreement, in accordance with Commission Rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). The Commission finds that the parties have represented that their settlement agreement resolves all issues in this and other litigations, and that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation, in satisfaction of Commission Rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). The Commission denies the request to reconsider its previous determinations not to review certain findings in the FID, as set forth in the Commission's WTR Notice, and on review to take no position with respect to the unreviewed issues addressed in the FID. Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.42(h), 19 CFR 210.42(h), unreviewed initial determinations become the final determinations of the Commission. While the Commission may reconsider its prior determination on whether to review an initial determination under Rule 210.47, 19 CFR 210.47, the parties have presented no good cause or other justification for doing so here.
This investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 6, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
August 6, 2024.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective June 28, 2024, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject
The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows: the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 28, 2024; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on September 5, 2024; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than 5:15 p.m. on September 6, 2024; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on September 11, 2024, if deemed necessary; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on September 12, 2024; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on September 19, 2024; the Commission will make its final release of information on October 7, 2024; and final party comments are due by 5:15 p.m. on October 9, 2024.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
Office of Disability Employment Policy, United States Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection and request for public comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy is soliciting comments regarding this ODEP-sponsored information collection for the Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum [REYAAS] Project. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, DOL conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Comments pertaining to this information collection are due on or before October 11, 2024.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• DOL-ODEP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
David Rosenblum by telephone at 202-693-7840 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Recent estimates suggest that there are more than one million young adults (ages 16 through 28) on the autism spectrum in the U.S. who offer myriad strengths to potential employers yet face unique challenges in attaining and maintaining employment. The mix of challenges facing young adults on the autism spectrum during the transition to adulthood and employment vary. About 1 in 3 also have an intellectual disability (Maenner et al. 2020; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2017), and prevalence estimates of minimally and nonverbal status across studies converge at around 30 percent (Tager-Flusberg and Kasari 2013). People on the spectrum also have high rates of co-occurring medical and mental health conditions, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and depression (Kerns et al. 2020). An additional challenge for young adults on the spectrum is that many will need various kinds of support from multiple providers and across different systems of care, and they can face increasing difficulty meeting their complex service needs as they transition to adult service systems (Foster and Gifford 2005; Shattuck et al. 2011). These factors can combine to make it challenging for youth on the autism spectrum to attain and maintain employment.
Public policy increasingly acknowledges the importance of addressing the employment-related challenges facing young adults on the autism spectrum. The most recent federal Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support (CARES) Act of 2019
To better understand the employment experiences and outcomes of young adults on the autism spectrum, this study will conduct two data collection activities. First, the study team will conduct a large-scale survey of autistic young adults ages 16 to 28, which will be one of the first large-scale data collections of employment outcomes for this population (Musse et al., 2022). Second, the study team will conduct follow-up qualitative telephone or web interviews with a subset of survey respondents. This study will provide insightful data on the employment experiences of young adults on the autism spectrum, which policymakers and the autism community can use to inform program and policy changes that support the well-being of autistic people.
This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an Information Collection Review cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal.
DOL is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum [REYAAS] Project. DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of DOL's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns the Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum [REYAAS] Project. DOL-ODEP has included the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request below.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before September 11, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michelle Neary by telephone at 202-693-6312, or by email at
Form CA-9 is used to file a claim for permanent impairment due to a federal employment related injury and to obtain necessary medical documentation to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D))
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on August 12, 2024.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition for TUV SUD America Inc. (TUVAM). TUVAM's expansion covers the addition of eighteen test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
TUVAM submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on September 30, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0043-0059), requesting the expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition to include eighteen additional test standards. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews with respect to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVAM's expansion application in the
To review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVAM's application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVAM's expansion application and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed in this notice. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVAM's expanded scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVAM's recognition to include the testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards shown below in Table 1.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, OSHA may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-004, Chapter 2, Section VIII), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR 1910.7, including but not limited to, abiding by the following conditions of recognition:
1. TUVAM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVAM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVAM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVAM's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVAM as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Asbestos in Construction Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 11, 2024.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it.
The Asbestos in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1101) protects workers from adverse health effects arising from workplace exposure to asbestos, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis (an emphysema-like condition) and gastrointestinal cancer. The standard requires employers to monitor worker exposure, provide medical surveillance, and maintain accurate records of worker exposure to asbestos. These records will be used by employers, workers, and the Government to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to asbestos in the workplace.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB review the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Asbestos in Construction Standard. The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 139,401 burden hours, from 4,199,335 to 4,059,934 hours. There are several reasons for this adjustment in burden hours. First, the Agency updated the data sources used to estimate the number of respondents and unit costs. Secondly, there was a decrease in the number of buildings affected. As a result, there was a decrease in the total burden hours.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on August 12, 2024.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as a NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of two test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA submitted two applications, dated August 25, 2023 (OSHA-2007-0042-0074), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion applications in the
To review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVRNA's application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, their capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards shown below in table 1.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR 1910.7, including but not limited to, abiding by the following conditions of recognition:
1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVRNA, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020) and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs) for Marine Terminals.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 11, 2024.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled “
Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to provide workers with safe work practices when using VTLs.
Paragraph (a) of § 1917.71 requires that all intermodal containers are legibly and permanently marked with the weight of the container when empty ((a)(1)); the maximum weight the container is designated to carry in pounds ((a)(2)); and the maximum weight including the container ((a)(3)).
Additionally, loaded containers must display their gross weight plainly marked on the container in a way that it is visible to the crane operator or other hoisting equipment operator or signalman, or to every supervisor and foreman on the site and in charge of the operation ((b)(2)(i)), or supplied in the form of a cargo stowage plan or equivalent permanent record to the crane or other hoisting equipment operator and signalman, if any, and to every supervisor and foreman on the site and in charge of the operation ((b)(2)(ii)).
The labeling of intermodal containers with the weight of the container, the maximum weight of cargo that can be packed in the container, and their sum provides the crane operator or other hoisting equipment operator or signalman, or to every supervisor and foreman on the site and in charge of the operation with a minimum and maximum range under which a container can be safely lifted. Providing the gross weight, either marked on the container or supplied in the form of a cargo stowage plan or equivalent permanent record, ensures that the containers being lifted and cranes/derricks performing the lifting are not overloaded.
Paragraph (i)(8)(iv) of § 1917.71 requires employers to ensure that the interbox connectors used in VTLs has been certified by a competent authority authorized under § 1918.11 (for interbox connectors that are part of a vessel's gear) or § 1917.50 (for other interbox connectors). Paragraph (i)(8)(v) requires employers to make the certification available for inspection and that the certificate attests that the interbox connector meets the strength criteria specified in paragraph (i)(8)(iv) of the standard. Also, paragraph (i)(8)(vi) requires that each interbox connector be clearly and durably marked with its safe working load for lifting with and an identifying number or mark that will enable it to be associated with its test certificate. The certification is necessary to ensure that interbox connector-corner casting assemblies have adequate strength to ensure the safety of the lift. Marking of interbox connectors informs employers, workers, and OSHA that the interbox connectors have been certified.
Paragraph (j)(2) of § 1917.71 requires the employer to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan for transporting vertically connected containers in the terminal. The transport plan helps ensure the safety of terminal workers and thereby enhances productivity. Paragraph (k)(2) of § 1917.71 requires that the written transport plan include the safe work zone and procedures to ensure that workers are not in the zone when a VTL is in motion.
Written plans give employers, workers, and OSHA compliance officers assurance that VTLs are safe to use and provide the compliance officers with an efficient means to assess employer compliance with the standard.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs) for Marine Terminals. The agency is requesting an adjustment decrease in burden hours from 23,256 hours to 22,932 hours, a difference of 324 hours. This decrease is due to a reduction in the number of containers per establishment, from 2,950 to 2,906.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation (Udall Foundation) is proposing one new Information Collection Request (ICR). The proposed ICR is necessary to gather feedback on agency delivery of its services and to improve service delivery and customer service.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 11, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, by mail to Gwendolyn Franks, Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, 434 E University Blvd., Suite 300, Tucson, AZ 85705 or by email to
For specific questions or to request additional information about this ICR, contact Gwendolyn Franks at
The Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.
Thursday, August 29, 2024, 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. All times are eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in and Webex information below under
Dr. Bette Siegel, Designated Federal Officer, Human Exploration and Operations Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, via email at
As noted above, this meeting will be open to the public via Webex and telephonically. Webex connectivity information is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webex event, you may use your computer or provide your phone number to receive a call back, otherwise, call the U.S. toll conference number listed.
On August 29, the event address for attendees is:
The webinar number is 2824 562 6697 and the webinar password is Cu4qmHxM?65 . If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is 1-929-251-9612 or 1-415-527-5035 and access code is 2824 562 6697 and password is 28476496.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that these meeting be held on these days to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
For more information, please visit
National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) will hold thirty-seven meetings, by video conference, of the Humanities Panel, a Federal advisory committee, during August 2024, and five meetings in September 2024. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965.
See
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 10), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
1. Date: August 1, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of European Studies, Political Science, and Jurisprudence, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
2. Date: August 1, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Asian Studies and Film Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
3. Date: August 1, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Museum Studies and Preservation, for the Preservation and Access Education and Training grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
4. Date: August 2, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Communication, Media, and American History and Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
5. Date: August 2, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of U.S. History and Environmental Humanities, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
6. Date: August 5, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Social Sciences, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
7. Date: August 5, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
8. Date: August 5, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Libraries, Archives, and Communities, for the Preservation and Access Education and Training grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
9. Date: August 6, 2024.
This video meeting—the first of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Community Colleges grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
10. Date: August 6, 2024.
This video meeting—the second of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Community Colleges grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
11. Date: August 6, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Cultural Anthropology, for the Cultural and Community Resilience grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
12. Date: August 7, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
13. Date: August 7, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Climate, for the Cultural and Community Resilience grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
14. Date: August 7, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
15. Date: August 8, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Community Colleges, Tribal Colleges, and Universities grant programs, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
16. Date: August 8, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Climate, for the Cultural and Community Resilience grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
17. Date: August 8, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
18. Date: August 9, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Digital Preservation and AV, for the Preservation and Access Education and Training grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
19. Date: August 12, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
20. Date: August 13, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Digital and Media Preservation, for the Research and Development grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
21. Date: August 13, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
22. Date: August 14, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
23. Date: August 14, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
24. Date: August 15, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
25. Date: August 15, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Community and Ethnographic Preservation, for the Research and Development grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
26. Date: August 15, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities
27. Date: August 16, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
28. Date: August 16, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.
29. Date: August 20, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Preventative Care and Conservation Science, for the Research and Development grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
30. Date: August 21, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Collections and Access, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
31. Date: August 22, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Arts and Public Humanities, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
32. Date: August 27, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of World History and Culture, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.
33. Date: August 27, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Spatial Humanities, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
34. Date: August 28, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Collections and Access, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
35. Date: August 28, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Arts and Culture, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.
36. Date: August 29, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of U.S. History, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.
37. Date: August 29, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Scholarly Communication, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
38. Date: September 4, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Computational Analysis and Languages, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
39. Date: September 4, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of U.S. History, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.
40. Date: September 5, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Indigenous Studies, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.
41. Date: September 6, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of U.S. History, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.
42. Date: September 10, 2024.
This video meeting will discuss applications for the Graduate Education in the Humanities: A National Convening grant program, submitted to the Office of Challenge Programs. Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chair's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
Weeks of August 12, 19, 26, and September 2, 9, 16, 2024. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 12, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 19, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 26, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 9, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 16, 2024.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Sarah Turner at 301-287-9058 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.”
Submit comments by October 11, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0052 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange to [sic] amend Options 4, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3(h) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on units that represent interests in a trust that hold ether (“Ether ETPs”), designating them as Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (“ETFs”) deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange. Options 4, Section 3(h) provides that, subject to certain other criteria set forth in that Rule, securities deemed appropriate for options trading include ETFs that represent certain types of interests,
Ether ETPs are ether-backed commodity ETPs structured as trusts.
The Exchange's initial listing standards for ETFs on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to the Ether ETPS. The Exchange expects Ether ETPS to satisfy the initial listing standards as set forth in Options 4, Section 3(a) and Options 4, Section 3(h). Pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(a), a security (which includes an ETF) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be a security registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act), and the security shall be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
Options on Ether ETPS will also be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards for options on ETFs set forth in Options 4, Section 4(g) for ETFs deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h). Specifically, options approved for trading pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h) will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such ETFs if the ETFs are delisted from trading as provided in subparagraph (b)(5) of Options 4, Section 4
(1) in the case of options covering Exchange-Traded Fund Shares approved pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(A)(i), in accordance with the terms of subparagraphs (b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Options 4, Section 4;
(2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(A)(ii),
(3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities or non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts, options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments, on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or
(4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on a [sic] Ether ETP would be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Options 4, Section 5(d), which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on
Ether ETP options will trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs on the Exchange. Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all options on ETFs on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Ether ETPS on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other ETFs that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(iv).
Position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including options on Ether ETPS, are determined pursuant to Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, respectively. Position and exercise limits for ETFs options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to options on Ether ETPS, and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new option series. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including precious metal-commodity backed ETF options, as proposed. Also, the Exchange may obtain information from CME Group Inc.'s designated contract markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group related to any financial instrument that is based, in whole or in part, upon an interest in or performance of ether, as applicable.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority or “OPRA” have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on Ether ETPS up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Exchange Rules. Because the proposal is limited to ETFs on a single commodity, the Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of Ether ETP options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on Ether ETPS will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of ether and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with ether-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on Ether ETPS in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market (if the Commission approves Ether ETPS for exchange-trading),
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on Ether ETPS will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on Ether ETPS will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on a [sic] ether-based ETP, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering Ether ETP options will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risk in their portfolios more easily in connection with exposure to the price of ether and with ether-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Ether ETP options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists options on other commodity-based ETFs,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange Rules, previously filed with the Commission. Options on Ether ETPS must satisfy the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Exchange Rules, applicable to options on all ETFs, including ETFs that hold other commodities already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange. Ether ETP options will trade in the same manner as any other ETF options—the same Exchange Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of all ETF options, including permissible expirations, strike prices and minimum increments, and applicable position and exercise limits and margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on Ether ETPS in the same manner.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new ETF option series. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading ETF options, including Ether ETP options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as Ether ETPS would need to satisfy the initial listing standards set forth in the Exchange Rules in the same manner as any other ETF before the Exchange could list options on them. Additionally, Ether ETP options will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options. The Exchange Rules currently applicable to the listing and trading of options on ETFs on the Exchange will apply in the same manner to the listing and trading of all options on Ether ETPS. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity-based ETFs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on Ether ETPS will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of Ether ETP options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on Ether ETPS. Additionally, the Exchange notes that listing and trading Ether ETP options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering Ether ETP options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with ether prices and ether-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 25, 2024, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
2 p.m. on Thursday, August 15, 2024.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on iShares Ethereum Trust (the “Trust”)
Currently, Options 4, Section 3(h) provides that securities deemed appropriate for options trading shall include shares or other securities (“Exchange-Traded Fund Shares” or “ETFs”) that are traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS” stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, and that meet certain criteria specified in Options 4, Section 3(h), including that they:
(i) represent interests in registered investment companies (or series thereof) organized as open-end management investment companies, unit investment trusts or similar entities that hold portfolios of securities and/or financial instruments, including, but not limited to, stock index futures contracts, options on futures, options on securities and indices, equity caps, collars and floors, swap agreements, forward contracts, repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements (the “Financial Instruments”), and money market instruments, including, but not limited to, U.S. government securities and repurchase agreements (the “Money Market Instruments”) comprising or otherwise based on or representing investments in broad-based indexes or portfolios of securities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments (or that hold securities in one or more other registered investment companies that themselves hold such portfolios of securities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments) or
(ii) represent interests in a trust or similar entity that holds a specified non-U.S. currency or currencies deposited with the trust when aggregated in some specified minimum number may be surrendered to the trust or similar entity by the beneficial owner to receive the specified non-U.S. currency or currencies and pays the beneficial owner interest and other distributions on the deposited non-U.S. currency or currencies, if any, declared and paid by the trust (“Currency Trust Shares”) or
(iii) represent commodity pool interests principally engaged, directly or indirectly, in
(iv) represent interests in the SPDR® Gold Trust, the iShares COMEX Gold Trust, the iShares Silver Trust, or the ETFS Gold Trust or
(v) represents an interest in a registered investment company (“Investment Company”) organized as an open-end management company or similar entity, that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies, which is issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a specified portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a value equal to the next determined net asset value (“NAV”), and when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request, which holder will be paid a specified portfolio of securities and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined NAV (“Managed Fund Share”).
In addition to the aforementioned requirements, Options 4, Section 3(h)(1) and (2) must be met to list options on ETFs.
The Exchange proposes to expand the list of ETFs that are appropriate for options trading on the Exchange in Options 3, Section 4(h)(iv) to include the Trust.
The Shares are issued by the Trust, a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust will operate pursuant to a trust agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) between the Sponsor, BlackRock Fund Advisors (the “Trustee”) as the trustee of the Trust and will appoint Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee of the Trust (the “Delaware Trustee”) by such time that the Registration Statement is effective. The Trust issues Shares representing fractional undivided beneficial interests in its net assets. The assets of the Trust will consist only of ether (“ether” or “ETH”) held by a custodian on behalf of the Trust, except under limited circumstances when transferred through the Trust's prime broker temporarily (described below), and cash. Neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodian (as defined below), nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, engage in action where any portion of the Trust's ETH becomes subject to the Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional ETH or generate income or other earnings. Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC (the “Ether Custodian”), is the custodian for the Trust's ether holdings, and maintains a custody account for the Trust (“Custody Account”); Coinbase, Inc. (the “Prime Execution Agent”), an affiliate of the Ether Custodian, is the prime broker for the Trust and maintains a trading account for the Trust (“Trading Account”); and The Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian for the Trust's cash holdings (the “Cash Custodian” and together with the Ether Custodian, the “Custodians”) and the administrator of the Trust (the “Trust Administrator”). Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee may delegate all or a portion of its duties to any agent, and has delegated the bulk of the day-to-day responsibilities to the Trust Administrator and certain other administrative and record-keeping functions to its affiliates and other agents. The Trust is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).
The investment objective of the Trust is to reflect generally the performance of the price of ether. The Trust seeks to reflect such performance before payment of the Trust's expenses and liabilities. The Shares are intended to constitute a simple means of making an investment similar to an investment in ether through the public securities market rather than by acquiring, holding and trading ether directly on a peer-to-peer or other basis or via a digital asset platform. The Shares have been designed to remove the obstacles represented by the complexities and operational burdens involved in a direct investment in ether, while at the same time having an intrinsic value that reflects, at any given time, the investment exposure to the ether owned by the Trust at such time, less the Trust's expenses and liabilities. Although the Shares are not the exact equivalent of a direct investment in ether, they provide investors with an alternative method of achieving investment exposure to ether through the public securities market, which may be more familiar to them.
An investment in the Shares is backed by ether held by the Ether Custodian on behalf of the Trust. All of the Trust's ether will be held in the Custody Account, other than the Trust's ether which is temporarily maintained in the Trading Account under limited circumstances,
The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to spot ether as well as a hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with ether products and positions. Similar to other commodity ETFs in which options may be listed on ISE (
Options on the Trust will trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs on the Exchange. Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all options on ETFs on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures, will apply to the listing and trading of options on the Trust on the Exchange. Today, these rules apply to options on the various commodities ETFs deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(iv).
The Exchange's initial listing standards for ETFs on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to the Trust. The initial listing standard as set forth in Options 4, Section 3(a) provides that:
Underlying securities with respect to which put or call options contracts are approved for listing and trading on the Exchange must meet the following criteria: (1) the security must be registered and be an “NMS stock” as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act; and (2) the security shall be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
(1) the criteria and guidelines for underlying securities set forth in Options 4, Section 3(h), or
(2) it must be available for creation or redemption each business day from or through the issuing trust, investment company, commodity pool or other entity in cash or in kind at a price related to net asset value, and the issuer is obligated to issue Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in a specified aggregate number even if some or all of the investment assets and/or cash required to be deposited have not been received by the issuer, subject to the condition that the person obligated to deposit the investment assets has undertaken to deliver them as soon as possible and such undertaking is secured by the delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of cash or cash equivalents satisfactory to the issuer of the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, all as described in the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares' prospectus, or the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares must be based on international or global indexes, or portfolios that include non-U.S. securities, and meet other criteria.
Options on the Trust will also be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards for options on ETFs set forth in Options 4, Section 4(g). Specifically, options approved for trading pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h) will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such ETFs if the ETFs are delisted from trading as provided in subparagraph (b)(5) of Options 4, Section 4
(1) in the case of options covering Exchange-Traded Fund Shares approved pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(A)(i), in accordance with the terms of subparagraphs (b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Options 4, Section 4;
(2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(A)(ii),
(3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities or non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts, options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments, on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or
(4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on the Trust would be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Options 4, Section 5(d), which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on ETFs approved for options trading pursuant to Section 3(h) of Options 4 will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200.
Position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including options on the Trust, are determined pursuant to Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, respectively. Position and exercise limits for ETFs options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. Further, Options 6C, Section 3, which governs margin requirements applicable to the trading of all options on the Exchange including options on ETFs, will also apply to the trading of the Trust options.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to options on the Trust. Also, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new option series. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including the proposed Trust options. ISE would implement any new surveillance procedures it deemed necessary to effectively monitor the trading of options on the Trust. Additionally, ISE may obtain trading information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority or “OPRA” have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on the Trust up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Exchange Rules. Because the proposal is limited to one class, the Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of the Trust options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Trust will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on an ETF based on spot ether, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering options on a competitively priced ETF based on spot ether will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost risk management tool allowing them to manage, more easily, their positions, and associated risks, in their portfolios in connection with exposure to spot ether. Today, the Exchange lists options on other commodity ETFs structured as a trust, which essentially offer the same objectives and benefits to investors, and for which the Exchange has not identified any issues with the continued listing and trading of options on those ETFs.
The Exchange also believes the proposal to permit options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because options on the Trust will comply with current Exchange Rules. Options on the Trust must satisfy the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Exchange Rules, applicable to options on all ETFs, including options on other commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(iv). Further, Exchange Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of options on ETFs, including permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, and margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on the Trust. The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support options on the Trust. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing
Finally, the Commission has previously approved the listing and trading of options on other commodity ETFs structured as a trust, such as SPDR® Gold Trust,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as options on the Trust will be subject to initial listing standards and continued listing standards the same as other options on ETFs listed on the Exchange. Further, options on the Trust will be subject to Exchange Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of options on ETFs, including permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, and margin requirements. Options on the Trust will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity ETFs structured as a trust.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that permitting options on the Trust to trade on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the Trust. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with spot ether prices and ether related products and positions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would establish a margin add-on charge that would be applied to all Clearing Member accounts to help mitigate the risks arising from intraday and overnight trading activity.
Proposed changes to OCC's Rules are contained in Exhibit 5A that OCC provided as part of File No. SR-OCC-2024-010. Proposed changes to OCC's Margin Policy are contained in confidential Exhibit 5B that OCC provided as part of File No. SR-OCC-2024-010. Material proposed to be added is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission. OCC also clears stock loan and futures transactions. In its role as a clearing agency, OCC guarantees the performance of its Clearing Members for all transactions cleared by OCC by becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer (or the lender to every borrower and the borrower to every lender, in the case of stock loan transactions). These clearing activities could expose OCC to financial risks if a Clearing Member fails to fulfil its obligations to OCC. In its role as guarantor for all transactions cleared through OCC, one of the more material risks related to a Clearing Member's failure to perform is credit risk arising from the activity of the Clearing Members whose performance OCC guarantees. OCC manages these financial risks through financial safeguards, including the collection of margin collateral from Clearing Members designed to, among other things, address the market risk associated with a Clearing Member's positions during the period of time OCC has determined it would take to liquidate those positions.
At the start of each business day, OCC collects margin requirements for each marginable account calculated by OCC's proprietary System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulation (“STANS”) based on the account's end-of-day positions from the previous business day. OCC also makes intraday margin calls in defined circumstances. For example, pursuant to OCC Rule 609 and OCC's Margin Policy, which has been filed with and approved as a rule by the Commission,
Since the time these existing margin collection processes were established, OCC has observed a significant increase in contract volume and, in particular, volume in option contracts traded on the day of their expiration—so-called “zero-days-to-expiration” or “0DTE” options.
The increase in 0DTE options trading poses challenges to OCC's risk management, particularly with respect to the management of OCC's overnight and intraday risk exposure to its Clearing Members in between the collections of margin at the start of each business day. Because OCC's STANS margin calculation is based on end-of-day positions, the margin requirement may not account for 0DTE options trading activity, since the Clearing Member would have either traded out of or exercised the options position, or the option would have expired by the end of the day. In addition, OCC's portfolio revaluation process for purposes of determining intraday margin calls to address the change in value of margin collateral is based on a Clearing Member's start-of-day collateral deposits, which would not include margin for 0DTE options positions.
In order to mitigate OCC's overnight and intraday risk exposures, OCC proposes to implement a margin add-on charge (the “Intraday Risk Charge”). OCC would calculate this charge using the system currently employed to monitor Clearing Members' overnight trading activity. Through OCC's Watch Level surveillance under its Third-Party Risk Management Framework, OCC has also used this system to identify patterns of risk increasing activity in 0DTE options for purposes of considering and calculating protective measures in the form of additional margin for particular Clearing Members when certain thresholds have been breached relative to a Clearing Member's net capital. This filing would extend that approach to all Clearing Members (without regard to net capital thresholds) and with respect to all products OCC clears.
OCC proposes to capture the risks associated with overnight and intraday activity by: (1) establishing an Intraday Risk Charge add-on, and (2) establishing monitoring and escalation criteria for Clearing Members whose intraday activity exceeds certain thresholds relative to its Intraday Risk Charge (“Intraday Monitoring Thresholds”).
OCC proposes to establish the Intraday Risk Charge to help mitigate the increased credit exposure presented by the intraday and overnight trading activities of its Clearing Members. OCC would calculate the charge based on the increased risk identified through OCC's current intraday margin system, which recalculates the STANS margin risk using portfolio position sets updated every 20 minutes between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Central Time, and at-least every hour during ETH sessions.
OCC proposes to use outputs from the previous night's daily STANS methodology calculation, incorporating current portfolio changes, to monitor that day's peak intraday risk increases (
OCC proposes to use the average of the peak intraday risk increases as the baseline charge to help address certain limitations of the present system, the most impactful of which is the use of the previous day's theoretical scenarios that do not take into account new underlying prices. The calculation of the peak intraday activity would capture all products that OCC clears, including 0DTE options. The Intraday Risk Charge would apply to all margin accounts other than cross-margin accounts for OCC's cross-margining program with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), which do not currently support intraday position feeds. OCC would retain authority to increase the amount of the charge for a particular Clearing Member beyond the average of the peaks, either when adjusting the Intraday Risk Charge on a monthly basis or on an intra-month
OCC has reviewed the potential impact of the proposed changes on all Clearing Members over a one (1) year period. OCC has observed that the proposed add-on would have generated an average margin increase of less than 5% in the aggregate.
To establish this new charge, OCC proposes to amend Rule 601 by adding a new paragraph (i). OCC proposes to define the Intraday Risk Charge under proposed Rule 601(i)(1) to mean the additional margin assets required from a Clearing Member to mitigate any increased risk exposure to OCC not otherwise covered by the margin requirements already calculated in accordance with Rule 601 and OCC's policies and procedures. OCC would assess this add-on charge as needed to cover uncollateralized risk from overnight and intraday trading activities. Proposed Rule 601(i)(2) would provide the method of calculation for the proposed Intraday Risk Charge add-on, which would generally be set as the average of the peak intraday risk increases from overnight and intraday positions over the preceding month.
OCC would also amend its Margin Policy to describe material aspects of the Intraday Risk Charge. The new charge would be added to the “Add-On Charges” section. That addition would provide that periodically throughout each trading day and during extended trading hours, OCC's systems measure the intraday exposure to each margin account for which intraday position information is available to identify intraday risk increases above the baseline STANS risk measurement. The Margin Policy would define “risk increases” in this context as results that show an increase to a portfolio's prior night calculated risk measurement based on the STANS expected shortfall and stress test components. Clearing Members trading during ETH hours will still be obligated to pay an ETH margin add-on charge, and any ETH related risk controls will continue to operate independently from the proposed Intraday Risk Charge changes.
The Margin Policy would further provide that on at least a monthly basis, OCC's Financial Risk Management department (“FRM”) reviews and verifies the daily peak increases based on a referenced procedure maintained by FRM's Market Risk business unit.
With respect to governance related to imposing the monthly Intraday Risk Charge, the Margin Policy would provide that OCC may impose the Intraday Risk Charge in the amount of the average of the verified peak daily risk increases over the prior month with FRM Officer
OCC also proposes to establish monitoring and escalation criteria when a Clearing Member's intraday risk increase departs significantly from the activity that set the Intraday Risk Charge. This new monitoring regime would be separate and independent from any existing ETH-related risk controls and would be run in parallel. OCC proposes to add the new approach to the section of the Margin Policy that currently addresses margin calls and adjustments. The Margin Policy would provide that FRM would establish and maintain “Intraday Risk Charge Monitoring Thresholds” in referenced market risk procedures for verified intraday risk increases that are greater than statistical measures above a Clearing Member's Intraday Risk Charge. Generally, the new credit risk thresholds would be specified as a set of levels based on standard deviations from a Clearing Member's Intraday Risk Charge. The Margin Policy would further provide that on an at-least daily basis, FRM would review the intraday risk increases generated by the intraday risk system against the Intraday Risk Change Monitoring Thresholds. If a verified intraday risk increase breach is greater than the thresholds, the Margin Policy would provide that an FRM Officer may issue a margin call,
With respect to governance related to the Intraday Risk Charge Monitoring Thresholds, the Margin Policy would also provide that FRM coordinates a review of those thresholds, as well as the calculation and lookback period, on an at least annual basis, or on an ad-hoc basis, as needed. OCC retains the authority to adjust the Intraday Risk Charge Monitoring Thresholds, as well as the calculation and lookback period, based on the review of intraday risk posed by that Clearing Member's portfolio changes. Any such adjustment to the Intraday Risk Charge Monitoring Thresholds, calculation, or lookback period may apply to particular or all Clearing Members depending on an analysis of the activity generating peak intraday margin numbers, the number of breaches above the monitoring thresholds, and overall market activity and trends within the lookback period. The review would be presented to the MRWG, which must review and is authorized to escalate any recommended changes to the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, who must review and is authorized to approve them. OCC's Risk Committee will be notified of all changes. As discussed above,
OCC will release and implement the proposed changes into production within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the date that OCC receives all necessary regulatory approvals for the proposed changes. OCC will announce the implementation date of the proposed change by an Information Memorandum posted to its public website at least 2 weeks prior to implementation.
OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, marks participant positions to market and collects margin, including variation margin or equivalent charges if relevant, at least daily and includes the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls in defined circumstances.
For the above reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) requires that the rules of a clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
While the proposed rule change may impact different accounts to a greater or lesser degree depending on each Clearing Member's trading activity, including portfolios containing a greater volume of 0DTE option positions, OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. As discussed above, OCC is obligated under the Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, among other things, (i) considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market, and (ii) marks participant positions to market and collects margin, including variation margin or equivalent charges if relevant, at least daily and includes the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls in defined circumstances.
Moreover, the proposed rule change relates to risk management changes designed to mitigate OCC's credit exposure from the increased risk generated from Clearing Member trading activities during the overnight session and intraday trading that includes 0DTE option contracts. As noted above, the risk exposure from the significant increase in intraday trading activity of 0DTE options may not be adequately captured under OCC's current margin system. OCC believes the Intraday Risk Charge would be a risk-based approach suitable to capturing the increased intraday risk exposure presented to OCC from such trading activities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change would be applied uniformly across all Clearing Members and affect all cleared products, including 0DTE option contracts and ETH eligible products, and provide greater clarity to all market participants on margin requirements for overnight and intraday trading. Accordingly, OCC believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden or impact on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2024-010 and should be submitted on or before September 3, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Florida dated 08/06/2024.
Issued on 08/06/2024.
Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20490C and for economic injury is 204910.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Florida.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The U.S. Small Business Administration SBA is announcing the date, time, location and agenda for a meeting of the National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board. Members will convene as an independent source of advice and recommendations on matters related to the Small Business Development Centers Program. The meeting will be open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is required.
Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 2 p.m. EDT.
Meeting will be held via Microsoft Teams and in-person located at the Marriott Marquis Atlanta, 265 Peachtree Center Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303. The access link will be provided to attendees upon request.
Rachel Karton, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Small Business Development Centers (OSBDC), U.S. Small Business Administration, 409
OSBDC strongly encourages that public comments and questions pertinent to the SBDC Program be submitted in advance by August 30, 2024. Individuals may email
This event will be held over Microsoft Teams. For technical assistance, please visit the Microsoft Teams Support Page.
Pursuant to section l0(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), the SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers. The purpose of the meeting is to consider recommendations to SBA on matters pertaining to the SBDC Program.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to September 11, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Dr. Michael Rudisile, 2401 E Street NW, SA-1, Room H-228, Washington, DC 20522-0101, who may be reached on 202-663-1682 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
This collection is necessary for the Department's Bureau of Medical Services to evaluate medical eligibility for employment regarding operating a government owned vehicle, and for gathering supplemental pertinent medical information regarding identified conditions that could pose a safety risk to employees and others. This collection consists of the following forms: the medical evaluation for locally employed staff non-drivers (DS-6571); a tuberculosis risk assessment (DS-6573); a driver medical evaluation for locally employed staff (DS-6572); a driver medical evaluation for U.S. Direct Hire (DS-6576); and supplemental health questionnaires. The supplemental health questionnaires are utilized for vision related (DS-6577), seizure related (DS-6574), and diabetes related diagnoses (DS-6575). These questionnaires and concurrent medical evaluations are required to make informed assessments on ability to complete required employment-related tasks; implementation of this collection is pursuant to 5 CFR 930.108, 339.301, and the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 4084, 3901, and 3984.
The respondent will download the forms from a Department website. The respondent will complete and submit the forms to the local Health Unit and schedule an evaluation.
Notice of meeting.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA),
Sandra Fox,
NPATMA, enacted on April 5, 2000 as Public Law 106-181, required the establishment of the NPOAG within one year after its enactment. NPATMA requires that the NPOAG be a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairperson of the advisory group.
The duties of the NPOAG include providing advice, information, and recommendations to the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director on implementation of Public Law 106-181; quiet aircraft technology; other measures that might accommodate interests to visitors of national parks; and at the request of the Administrator and the Director, on safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over national parks or tribal lands.
The agenda for the meeting will include, but is not limited to, an update on ongoing park specific air tour management plans or voluntary agreements, status of agency implementation of court approved plan/schedule, update on environmental review process and special purpose law consultations, and public comment review process.
Although this is not a public meeting, interested persons may attend. Because seating is limited, please contact the person listed under
If you cannot attend the NPOAG meeting, a summary of the meeting will be made available under the NPOAG section of the FAA ATMP website at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 10 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on July 11, 2024. The exemptions expire on July 11, 2026.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On June 28, 2024, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 10 individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (89 FR 54142). The public comment period ended on June 29, 2024, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 10 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in § 391.41 (b)(11).
As of July 11, 2024, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (89 FR 54142):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0122, FMCSA-2013-0125, FMCSA-2014-0384, FMCSA-2017-0057, FMCSA-2021-0015, or FMCSA-2022-0034. Their exemptions were applicable as of July 11, 2024 and will expire on July 11, 2026.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2024-0024 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2024-0024), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the ME in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver has had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication, and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.
As a result of MEs misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified ME based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a notice of final disposition titled, “Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders,” (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since that time, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (78 FR 3069).
Rosario Basone is a 25-year-old class D license holder in New York. They have a history of localization related idiopathic epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2014. Their physician states that they are supportive of Rosario Basone receiving an exemption.
Kimberly Breker is a 38-year-old class DM license holder in North Dakota. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2010. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2012. Their physician states that they are supportive of Kimberly Breker receiving an exemption.
Ed Eskridge is a 49-year-old regular driver's license holder in Indiana. They have a history of post-traumatic epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2002. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2002. Their physician states that they are supportive of Ed Eskridge receiving an exemption.
David Garner is a 73-year-old class C license holder in Iowa. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since February 14, 2018. Their physician states that they are supportive of David Garner receiving an exemption.
Carlos Kelly is a 33-year-old class C license holder in North Carolina. They have a history of cryptogenic localization related epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2018. Their physician states that they are supportive of Carlos Kelly receiving an exemption.
Jaxon Krisko is a 41-year-old class D license holder in Ohio. They have a history of generalized epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures and have been seizure free since November 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2014. Their physician states that they are supportive of Jaxon Krisko receiving an exemption.
Justin McGinnis is a 49-year-old class A commercial driver's license (CDL) holder in Kansas. They have a history of a single unprovoked seizure and have been seizure free since October 10, 2017. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Justin McGinnis receiving an exemption.
Dalton Nicodemus is a 28-year-old class E license holder in West Virginia. They have a history of myoclonic seizures and have been seizure free since March 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 18, 2019. Their physician states that they are supportive of Dalton Nicodemus receiving an exemption.
Zachary Pfister is a 24-year-old class A CDL holder in Indiana. They have a history of absence seizures and have been seizure free since 2009. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since September 11, 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Zachary Pfister receiving an exemption.
Daniel Richey is a 53-year-old class A CDL holder in Texas. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 1987. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2008. Their physician states that they are supportive of Daniel Richey receiving an exemption.
Jessica Schmit is a 49-year-old class C license holder in Pennsylvania. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 1993. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2019. Their physician states that they are supportive of Jessica Schmit receiving an exemption.
Teri Smieja is a 60-year-old class BCD CDL holder in Wisconsin. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 1998. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2018. Their physician states that they are supportive of Teri Smieja receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 13 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on August 3, 2024. The exemptions expire on August 3, 2026.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On June 28, 2024, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 13 individuals requesting an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and requested comments from the public (89 FR 54145). The public comment period ended on July 29, 2024, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The commenter stated they believe persons who have a history of seizures or have a diagnosis of epilepsy should not be permitted to hold an exemption based on an increased risk for a car accident. They indicated that they would consider supporting the exemption if a significant amount of time has passed since the applicant's last seizure but still remain cautious due to the increased risk of these applicants.
As stated below in the next section of this notice, the Agency conducts an individualized assessment of each applicant considering multiple medical factors to include the length of time since the applicant's last seizure and the stability of their condition overall.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. However, FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel. The Agency conducted an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. A summary of each applicant's seizure history was discussed in the June 28, 2024,
These 13 applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 32 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable medication treatment regimen for the last 2 years. In each case, the applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and supports the ability to drive commercially.
The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds further that in each case exempting these applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8) would likely achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption, consistent with the applicable standard in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1).
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and include the following: (1) each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as defined by § 390.5T; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 13 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 12 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On June 28, 2024, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 12 individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (89 FR 54123). The public comment period ended on July 29, 2024, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based on its evaluation of the 12 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8).
As of July 1, 2024, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (89 FR 54123):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0109, FMCSA-2015-0116, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2015-0326, FMCSA-2018-0050, FMCSA-2018-0051, FMCSA-2019-0206, FMCSA-2020-0046, or FMCSA-2022-0043. Their exemptions were applicable as of July 1, 2024 and will expire on July 1, 2026.
As of July 21, 2024, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (89 FR 54123):
Sonny Chase (MN); Jason Miller (NE); and Michael Morris (OR).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2020-0047. Their exemptions were applicable as of July 21, 2024 and will expire on July 21, 2026.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the
Comments must be submitted before October 11, 2024.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alexandra Galanti at 202-366-5129 or
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for
OMB approval of this information collection.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petitions.
Ricon Corporation (Ricon), determined that certain Mirage, S-Series, and K-Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403,
Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), (202) 366-7236
Because of Ricon's determination, the following vehicle manufacturers who installed the S Series, and K Series wheelchair lifts in their motor vehicles determined that their motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404,
ElDorado Mobility, Inc. (ElDorado) determined that certain model year (MY) 2014-2018 Revability Advantage Ram Promaster 1500 and 2500 motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. ElDorado filed a noncompliance report dated July 3, 2018, and later amended it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion) determined that certain MY 2012-2018 Champion buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. Champion filed a noncompliance report dated July 5, 2018, and later amended that report on August 11, 2018. Champion petitioned NHTSA on August 8, 2018.
Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) determined that certain MY 2012-2018 Collins school buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. Collins filed a noncompliance report dated July 10, 2018, and later amended it on August 11, 2018. Collins petitioned NHTSA on August 7, 2018.
ElDorado National Kansas (ENC) determined that certain MY 2012-2018 ENC buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. ENC filed a noncompliance report on July 3, 2018, and later amended it on August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. DTNA filed two noncompliance reports, both dated July 18, 2018, and later amended both reports on August 15, 2018. DTNA petitioned NHTSA on August 15, 2018.
Navistar, Inc. (Navistar) determined that certain MY 2013-2019 IC buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. Navistar filed two noncompliance reports both dated June 20, 2018, and both were later amended on August 17, 2018. Navistar petitioned NHTSA on July 19, 2018, and amended the petition on September 24, 2018.
Notice of receipt of Ricon's and the vehicle manufacturers' petitions was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 30, 2021, in the
In concert with Ricon's filings, 6 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who Ricon sold lifts to and who installed the S-Series and K-Series lifts in its vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and inconsequential noncompliance petitions. Appropriately, ElDorado, Champion, Collins, ENC, DTNA, and Navistar determined the following vehicles are potentially involved:
Approximately 42 MY 2014-2018 Eldorado Revability Advantage Ram Promaster 1500/2500 motor vehicles, manufactured between September 1, 2014, and June 30, 2018.
Approximately 1,500 MY 2012-2018 Champion Challenger, Defender, Crusader, American, American Coach, American Crusader, CTS-FE, CTS-RE, HC American, Platinum Shuttle, and Stacked Rail Impulse buses, manufactured between May 7, 2012, and May 9, 2018.
Approximately 1,947 MY 2012-2018 Collins multi-function school activity buses (MFSAB) and Commercial buses, manufactured between May 1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
Approximately 1,447 MY 2012-2018 Eldorado, Aerotech, Aerolite, Aero Elite, Transtech, Advantage, World Trans, and Impulse buses, manufactured between May 1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
Approximately 31 MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2, Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-T-Liner HDX commercial buses, manufactured between July 21, 2012, and April 4, 2018, and approximately 3,834 MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2, Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-T-Liner HDX school buses, manufactured between May 5, 2012, and July 4, 2018.
Approximately 2,892 MY 2013-2014 IC Bus AE, MY 2013-2015 IC Bus BE, MY 2013-2019 IC Bus CE, MY 2013-2014 IC Bus RE, and 2016-2017 IC Bus RE school buses, manufactured between May 10, 2012, and May 2, 2018, and approximately 29 MY 2013-2018 IC Bus CE and RE commercial buses, manufactured between May 10, 2012, and November 7, 2017.
Ricon reported that 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts and 23,379 S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved while the OEMs reported, in total, 11,722 vehicles with the noncompliant S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved. To date, no OEMs have filed for the Mirage wheelchair lifts. On multiple occasions, NHTSA made inquiries to Ricon to reconcile the
The total number of vehicles reported by the OEMs has not changed and the number S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts as reported by Ricon on June 10, 2020, are the most up-to-date numbers. Based on current numbers as shown in the table above, there are still 18,405 lifts that have not been accounted for. Despite several meetings and communication with Ricon aimed at identifying the distribution and disposition of lifts not sold directly to vehicle manufacturers NHTSA has not been able to obtain additional information about those lifts.
NHTSA also feels it is prudent to emphasize that filing a petition for inconsequential noncompliance does not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers from the prohibition on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and vehicles under their control after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) to be equipped with a public-use lift certified as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
1.
(a) Per the petitioners, the S-Series and K-Series lifts are used as both public-use and private-use lifts. The petitioners explain that the subject lifts are designed with a durable webbing retention belt, “which is attached to and when belted, extends across each of the handrails.” The petitioners believe that the retention belt serves two purposes and is a redundant safety feature. First, the petitioners state that the retention belt is a means to physically secure an occupant within the lift.” Furthermore, the petitioners state that the retention belt acts as an electrical interlock that is linked to the operation of the lift because buckling the retention belt closes an electrical circuit which, if open, prevents lift operation. If the belt is not buckled, the platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not move up or down.
(b) The petitioners contend that the subject noncompliance “arises only when the unit is tested to the directions provided in the test procedure itself, when the retention belt is buckled and the wheelchair test device attempts to access the outer barrier.” However, the petitioners contend that outside of the test environment, the retention belt would not be buckled (and the lift would not be powered at any time an occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier).
(c) The petitioners state that under the test conditions described in S7.5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 403, once the platform lift is at the ground level loading position with the outer barrier fully deployed, the wheelchair test device is placed on the platform. However, the petitioners maintain that an occupant secured by the buckled retention belt, the belt itself would prevent contact between the occupant or mobility device with the outer barrier. The petitioners reiterate that no power is sent to either the lift or the outer barrier when the belt is unbuckled, therefore, the petitioners claim that any time an occupant is present on the platform portion of the lift, the belt interlock protects occupants from inadvertent movement of the outer barrier.
(d) Alternatively, the petitioners note that the test procedure provides that if the wheelchair test device cannot access the outer barrier because of a belt retention type device, the test may alternatively be conducted with the wheelchair test device on the ground facing the entrance to the lift. In this case, the petitioners contend that, if an occupant were attempting to access the platform from ground level outside the vehicle, the outer barrier would not be able to move unless the belt was buckled. As a buckled retention belt would stretch across the entrance to the lift the lift attendant or private individual operator would have to unbuckle the belt to allow access to the platform. As an unbuckled belt would
(e) The petitioners also argue that S7.5.1.1 of the test procedure, which provides that the wheelchair test device should be placed on the ground facing the entrance to the lift when loading from the ground, is contrary to normal practice and the Ricon operator's manual instructions. According to the petitioners, the industry standard practice is to load wheelchair occupants onto a lift with their back to the vehicle to minimize the risk of injury to the feet and lower extremities stemming from contact with the vehicle.
(f) The petitioners also state that the operator's manual and Ricon-provided decals facing outward on the vertical arms of the lift reinforce that the correct loading procedure is to have the lift rider face outward from the vehicle.
(a) Per the petitioners, the Mirage lifts are public-use lifts. The Mirage lifts also incorporate a belt retention device into its design, but the belt interlock functions somewhat differently than the S-Series and K-Series lifts. The petitioners explain that the belts on the Mirage lifts act as an interlock sensor that detects whether the outer barrier is in a vertical (closed) position. When the outer barrier is closed and the retention belt is buckled, the platform can operate. If the belt is unbuckled, the outer barrier can move from horizontal (open) to vertical (closed), but the platform itself cannot operate.
(b) The petitioners state that as with the S-Series and K-Series lifts, when an occupant is on the platform, the occupant is to be secured by the restraint belt. To exit the lift and cross the outer barrier, the belt must be unbuckled. Unbuckling the retention belt eliminates power sent to the platform.
(c) The petitioners argue that NHTSA's concern in adopting the outer barrier interlock in 2007 was that occupants could be pitched from the lift if the lift moved when the outer barrier was occupied. The petitioners claim that this concern does not exist in Ricon's design. The petitioners explain that when the belt is unbuckled, as it would be anytime a person is entering or exiting the lift, the platform is not powered and cannot move. If the belt is buckled and the lift is powered, the retention belt blocks access to the outer barrier if the occupant is present on the platform.
2.
(a) The petitioners say that the Agency has granted inconsequentiality petitions where the manufacturer has not met the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the noncompliance did not pose an increased risk to safety as the lift is used in the real world. The petitioners believe that the performance of Ricon's platform lifts is consistent with this precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners contend the Agency granted a petition for decision of inconsequential noncompliance submitted by The Braun Corporation (Braun) where the lift handrails did not meet the values for deflection force.
(c) The petitioners note that, similar to the noncompliance in the Braun petition, the subject noncompliance in the Ricon outer barrier emerges only because of the revisions to the test procedure implemented in 2012. The petitioners claim that in actual use and consistent with the operator's manual, the retention belt should never be buckled when an occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier. Therefore, the petitioners claim the noncompliance does not create significant safety concern.
(d) The petitioners state that NHTSA has also granted an inconsequentiality petition submitted by Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon) where the deployed wheelchair retention device was unable to withstand the required 1,600 pounds of force.
(e) The petitioners also state that Ricon lifts incorporate a retention belt that operates in the same manner as the belt described in the Maxon petition. In both cases, the belt precludes the lift from operating unless it is buckled. In granting the Maxon petition, the petitioners argue the Agency recognized the belt acted as a redundant safety feature (along with the technically noncompliant outer barrier) that precluded any safety risk. The petitioners state that the belt interlock in the Ricon lifts as well as the operator's manual instructions create similar redundancies and offer equivalent protection to occupants.
(f) Finally, the petitioners state the environment in which these lifts are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. When operated as a public use lift, the petitioners say there will be a lift attendant present to monitor the lift to ensure the occupant enters and exits
The petitioners conclude by expressing their belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
The petitioners' petitions and all supporting documents are available through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise protect.
The purpose of this standard is to prevent injuries and fatalities to passengers and bystanders during the operation of platform lifts installed in motor vehicles. Compliance with the outer barrier interlock requirements in section S6.10.2.6 is determined by using the test procedure in section S7.5. In that test, a mobility device simulator is placed such that a wheel or wheels are on the outer barrier and the interlock must prevent vertical movement of the lift from the ground level loading position within prescribed limits. As described by the petitioners, the retention belt interlock on the subject lifts is the functional equivalent of the interlock mechanism meeting S6.10.2.6 and provided the same level of safety. If the retention belt is buckled, the electrical circuit is closed and the platform and outer barrier can operate when the buttons on the operator's pendant are pressed. If the belt is un-buckled, the electrical circuit is broken and there is no power to the lift and the platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not deploy in either direction.
NHTSA agrees that the use and location of the retention belt on Ricon lifts, along with the operator's manual and instruction labels provided on the lifts provide a sufficient level of safety such that the noncompliance present in this case is inconsequential to safety. In so doing, the agency notes that it is unlikely that an operator or user of the subject lifts would attempt to load the lift with the restraint belt still buckled, particularly when the normal practice of loading the lift with the occupant facing outward is followed. If an occupant began to back onto the lift platform, access would be prevented by the forward location of the belt and the belt's contact with the wheelchair back. It is therefore certain that a lift operator would unbuckle the belt before attempting to load the passenger. Although there is the possibility of lift users tampering with or defeating a belt interlock to avoid using the belt restraint, NHTSA is not aware that this is a significant problem that should be factored into the agency's consideration of the subject Ricon petition.
As stated by the petitioners, NHTSA has previously granted similar petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Specifically, in the Maxon petition
Despite the previous response to the Maxon petition, NHTSA's current view is that a belt interlock could protect wheelchair occupants despite a noncompliant outer barrier if operated as Ricon describes. NHTSA's previous statements about platforms that include belt-type restraints (see Final Rule 77 FR 20558, at 20561-62) only addressed very specific test procedure issues and did not address whether an interlock-equipped restraint-belt can satisfy the interlock requirements of S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6. The agency has never intended to limit the use of restraint belts and continues to allow them as a useful safety feature. (Although there may at one time have been a concern about belt misuse in the case of private-use lifts,
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of these petitions does not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and buses under their control after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2024.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2024.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2024.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice of fees imposed on surety companies and reinsuring companies.
The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is updating the schedule of fees it imposes on and collects from surety companies and reinsuring companies, effective August 9, 2024.
Melvin Saunders, at (304) 480-5108 or
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA), codified at 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes Federal agencies to establish fees for a service or thing of value provided by the agency to members of the public. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25 allows agencies to impose user fees for services that confer a special benefit to identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public. Pursuant to 31 CFR 223.22, Treasury imposes fees on surety companies and reinsuring companies seeking to obtain or renew certification or recognition from Treasury. The fees imposed and collected cover the costs incurred by the Government for services performed reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating the companies' applications, financial statements, and other information. Treasury determines the amount of fees in accordance with the IOAA and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, as amended. The change in fees is the result of adding application processing fees for two new categories of reinsuring companies to the corporate federal surety bond program. The fees in the other categories are unchanged from the notice published in the
The new fee rate schedule is as follows:
(1) Examination of a company's application for a Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety or as an acceptable reinsuring company on Federal bonds: $12,400.
(2) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual renewal of its Certificate of Authority: $8,000.
(3) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an Admitted Reinsurer: $4,500.
(4) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual renewal of its authority as an Admitted Reinsurer: $3,200.
(5) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an Alien Reinsurer: $4,500.
(6) Examination of a company's application for recognition as a Complementary Reinsurer: $4,500.
Questions concerning this notice should be directed to the Surety Bond Branch, Special Assets and Liabilities Division, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Surety Bonds (A-1G), 257 Bosley Industrial Drive, Parkersburg, WV 26106, Telephone (304) 480-6635.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Associate Director for Sanctions Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On March 31, 2023, OFAC identified the following person as an entity that is owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by CARTES JARA, Horacio Manuel, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, and therefore that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13818. On August 6, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are no longer blocked as identified property of CARTES JARA, Horacio Manuel.
1. TABACALERA DEL ESTE S.A. (a.k.a. TABESA), Ybyra Pyta s/n Esquina Mandarinas, Villa Conavi II, Hernandarias 7220, Paraguay; Calle Yvyra Pyta y Mandarinas, Barrio Santa Teresa, Ciudad Hernandarias, Alto Parana, Paraguay; Organization Established Date 1994; Organization Type: Wholesale of food, beverages and tobacco; Tax ID No. 80008790-9 (Paraguay) [GLOMAG] (Linked To: CARTES JARA, Horacio Manuel).
On August 6, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. TABACALERA DEL ESTE S.A. (a.k.a. TABESA), Ybyra Pyta y Mandarinas, Barrio Santa Teresa, Hernandarias, Alto Parana 7220, Paraguay; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A)(2) of E.O. 13818 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of CARTES JARA, Horacio Manuel, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13818.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 12, 2024.
Ann Tabat at 1-888-912-1227 or (602) 636-9143.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 12, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ann Tabat. For more information, please contact Ann Tabat at 1-888-912-1227 or (602) 636-9143, or write TAP Office, 4041 N. Central Ave Phoenix, AZ 85012 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference through the Microsoft Teams Platform.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 26, 2024.
Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6550.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, September 26, 2024, at 3 p.m. eastern time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information, please contact Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6550, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce St. MC 1005, Dallas, TX 75242 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include the potential project referrals from the committees, and discussions on priorities the TAP will focus on for the 2024 year. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 12, 2024.
Jose Cintron-Santiago at 1-888-912-1227 or 787-522-8607.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 12, 2024, at 1 p.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Jose Cintron-Santiago. For more information, please contact Jose Cintron-Santiago at 1-888-912-1227 or 787-522-8607, or write TAP Office, 48 Carr 165 Suite 2000, Guaynabo, PR 00968-8000 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 11, 2024.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 18, 2024.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, September 18, 2024, at 11 a.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information, please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 10, 2024.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements (TAC) Project Committee will be held Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 3 p.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 12, 2024.
Kelvin Johnson at 1-888-912-1227 or 504-202-9679.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 12, 2024, at 4 p.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Kelvin Johnson. For more information, please contact Kelvin Johnson at 1-888-912-1227 or 504-202-9679, or write TAP Office, 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 12 New Orleans, LA 70112 or contact us at the website:
August 15, 2024, 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will take place at the Hotel Indigo Traverse City 263 W Grandview Parkway, Traverse City, MI 49684. The meeting will also be accessible via conference call and via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), Meeting ID: 973 8008 2585, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is
This meeting will be open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the “Board”) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:
The UCR Board Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to order, call roll for the Board, confirm the presence of a quorum, and facilitate self-introductions.
The UCR Executive Director will verify publication of the meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via email, followed by subsequent publication of the notice in the
The proposed Agenda will be reviewed. The Board will consider action to adopt.
Draft Minutes from the June 6, 2024, UCR Board meeting will be reviewed. The Board will consider action to approve.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will provide a report on any relevant agency activity.
UCR Legal Counsel will discuss some of the more significant proposed changes to the UCR Agreement. The UCR Board Chair will discuss the formation and composition of an Amendments Subcommittee to consider these and other proposed amendments to the UCR Agreement. These proposed amendments will be considered in a manner which is in accordance with the Procedure for Amending the Unified Carrier Registration Plan Agreement (the “Procedure”). This Procedure was adopted by the UCR Board at its June 6, 2024, UCR Board meeting. The Board may consider action to approve the formation of an Amendments Subcommittee to consider proposed amendments to the UCR Agreement pursuant to the Procedure.
Kellen's Chief Technology Officer will provide an update on relevant activity, to include a multi-year penetration testing proposal. The Board may consider action to approve a multi-year penetration testing proposal.
The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair and the UCR Depository Manager will provide an update on the distribution of fees from the UCR Depository to the participating states for the 2024 registration year.
The UCR Depository Manager will provide an update on the financial status of the administrative fund for the 6 months ended June 30, 2024.
The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair and UCR Depository Manager will provide an analysis pertaining to the setting 200E; of 2026 registration fees. The Board may authorize and direct notification to the FMCSA that the UCR Plan registration fee schedule will remain unchanged for 2026.
The Finance Subcommittee Chair and UCR Depository Manager will discuss moving UCR Plan bank accounts from Truist Bank to a different bank. The Board may take action to approve the move of UCR Plan bank accounts from Truist Bank to a different bank.
The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and Vice-Chair will summarize the recommendations made by the Audit Subcommittee at its July 25, 2024, meeting to remake the existing compliance initiatives applicable to all UCR Plan participating States. The revised compliance initiatives would instead require, beginning with the 2025 registration/audit year, that all participating States meet 3 out of the following 4 compliance initiatives as follows:
1. Previous or Reporting Year Unregistered Motor Carrier Audits for Tiers 4, 5, and 6 and requiring 100% closure;
2. Tying Retreat Audits to Inspections that occurred within the previous year or reporting year and requiring 100% closure;
3. Making FARs Audits applicable to the current year (October-June) in Tiers 4, 5, and 6 and requiring 100% closure; and,
4. Previous or Reporting Year UCR Violations Audits and requiring 100% closure. The Board may consider action to approve (1) replacing the current compliance initiatives with the new compliance initiatives described above, and (2) revising the Annual State Audit Reporting Evaluation Process to require participating states to meet 3 out 4 of the new compliance initiatives beginning with the 2025 registration/audit year.
The Subcommittee Chair, Vice Chair, DSL Transportation and Seiko Soft will lead a discussion on the status of the new Retreat Audit Program. The new Program utilizes roadside inspection data to conduct real-time automated audits of both non-IRP and IRP-plated commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). At least three possible choices will be presented for Board discussion tying inspection data to a CMVs' UCR registration/renewal:
• Stopping the registration/renewal transaction if the CMV does not agree with the vehicle count.
• Interrupting the registration/renewal transaction by showing inspection data to the CMV and sending the renewal to support for assistance.
• Allowing for normal CMV registration/renewal but with the creation of a Retreat Audit.
The UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair will discuss the development of key projects. The projects that will be discussed include the development of the educational audit certificate program, the optimization and redesign of the UCR Plan website, and the creation of a video explaining the importance of the UCR Plan and the National Registration System.
The UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on current and planned initiatives, to include the development of a video series intended to increase participation in the UCR focused on brokers, motor carriers, and bus operators.
The UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on current and planned initiatives to include an update on PowerPoint training, the creation of standards for annual UCR enforcement awards and recognition, and the upcoming awareness initiative.
No significant action to report.
The UCR Board Chair and the UCR Executive Director will present proposed amendments to the “Professional Services Agreement” and “Additional Professional Services Agreement” between the UCR Plan and DSL Transportation Services, Inc. The proposed amendments would change the scope of both contracts. One proposed amendment would also change the term of the “Additional Professional Services Agreement” should the Board approve Audit Subcommittee Report Item A regarding the remake of compliance initiatives and annual state audit evaluation criteria. The Board may consider action to approve the proposed amendments to both agreements.
The UCR Executive Director will provide a report covering his recent activity for the UCR Plan including any changes in the dates of UCR meetings in 2024.
The UCR Chief of Staff will provide a management update covering recent activity for the Depository, Operations, and Communications.
DSL Transportation Services, Inc. will report on the latest data from the FARs program, Tier 5 and 6 unregistered motor carriers, and other matters.
Seikosoft will provide an update on its recent/new activity related to the UCR's National Registration System.
The UCR Board Chair will call for any other business, old or new, from the floor.
The UCR Board Chair will adjourn the meeting.
The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, August 7, 2024, at:
Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors, (617) 305-3783,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation (hereinafter the Committee) will meet on Wednesday, August 28, 2024. The meeting session will begin and end as follows:
The Committee session is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of VA on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and the administration of VA's rehabilitation programs.
During the open session, the Committee will receive briefings on various Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) programs designed to enhance the rehabilitative potential of Veterans with disabilities.
Members of the public may submit written statements until Friday, August 23, 2024, for the Committee's review to Ms. Latrese Thompson, Designated Federal Officer, VBA (28), 1800 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, or at
Members of the public may attend in person or virtually using the following Microsoft Teams link by computer or mobile app:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2024.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final notice.
This final notice finalizes the process and procedures for the Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway and provides our responses to the public comments received.
This final notice is effective August 12, 2024.
Lori Ashby, (410) 786-6322.
This notice describes the method we will use to provide transitional coverage for emerging technologies (TCET) through the national coverage determination (NCD) process. The TCET pathway is designed to deliver transparent, predictable, and expedited national coverage for certain eligible Breakthrough Devices that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) market authorized. It builds upon CMS' experience with the Parallel Review program and the Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) pathway. Additionally, the TCET pathway reflects the feedback received from interested parties, including beneficiaries, patient groups, medical professionals and societies, medical device manufacturers, other Federal partners, and others involved in developing innovative medical devices. This feedback was obtained from informal and formal meetings, the comments we received as we conducted rulemaking for the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) pathway (referenced later in this section), and during the two listening sessions that were held following the repeal of the January 14, 2021 MCIT/“Reasonable and Necessary (R&N)” final rule (86 FR 2987). Additionally, feedback was obtained from public comments and one listening session following publication of the June 28, 2023,
The Medicare program serves over 66.7 million beneficiaries
Medicare Part A and Part B cover a wide range of items and services but may not cover every item or service that a physician or healthcare practitioner prescribes or orders. In general, for an item or service to be covered under Medicare, it must meet the standard described in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act)—that is, it must be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. CMS makes reasonable and necessary coverage decisions through various pathways to facilitate expeditious beneficiary access to items and services that meet the statutory standard for coverage.
We believe that new approaches could help make coverage decisions on certain new items and services, such as medical devices, more quickly and provide expedited access to new and innovative medical technologies. On November 15, 2021 (86 FR 62944), CMS published a final rule that repealed the MCIT rule before it was legally effective and, thus, was never implemented.
We believe that the TCET pathway balances the needs of beneficiaries, patient groups, medical professionals and societies, medical device manufacturers, and others involved in developing innovative medical devices.
Items and services, including medical devices, are currently covered under Part A or Part B in one of three ways, presented here for context. The TCET pathway described in this notice will leverage the existing NCD pathway, and CED in particular, to provide a streamlined coverage pathway for emerging technologies. We note that the TCET pathway does not alter the existing standards for these coverage mechanisms.
In the absence of an NCD or a local coverage determination (LCD), Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) make coverage decisions under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act and may cover items and services on a claim-by-claim basis if the MAC determines them to be reasonable and necessary for individual patients. Though claims may be denied if they are not determined to be reasonable and necessary, the claim-by-claim adjudication pathway remains the fastest path to potential coverage. The majority of all Medicare Parts A and B claims have coverage determined through the claim-by-claim adjudication process.
MACs develop LCDs under section 1862(a)(1)(A) that apply only within their geographic jurisdictions (see sections 1862(l)(6)(B) and 1869(f)(2)(B) of the Act). LCDs govern only the issuing MAC's claims adjudication and are not controlling authorities for qualified independent contractors or administrative law judges in the claims adjudication process.
The MACs follow specific guidance for developing LCDs for Medicare coverage as outlined in the CMS Program Integrity Manual (PIM), Chapter 13. LCDs generally take 9 to 12 months to develop. MACs are expected to finalize proposed LCDs within 365 days from opening, per Chapter 13.5.1-Local Coverage of the PIM.
The term “national coverage determination” is defined in section 1862(l)(6)(A) of the Act and means a determination by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) with respect to whether or not a particular item or service is covered nationally under Title XVIII of the Act. In general, NCDs are national policy statements published to identify the circumstances under which a particular item or service will be considered covered (or not covered) by Medicare. NCDs serve as generally applicable rules to ensure that similar claims for items or services are covered in the same manner. Often, an NCD is written in terms of defined clinical characteristics that identify a population that may or may not receive Medicare coverage for a particular item or service. Traditionally, CMS relies heavily on health outcomes data to make NCDs.
Most NCDs have involved determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, but NCDs can be made based on other provisions of the Act, such as section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act. Under section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act, Medicare has provided coverage for certain promising technologies with a limited evidence base on the condition that they are furnished in the context of approved clinical studies or with the collection of additional clinical data. CMS has used section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act to support the “Coverage with Evidence Development” or “CED” policy since July 12, 2006, and the most recent CED policy is described in the 2024 guidance document.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reviews all CED NCDs established under section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act. Consistent with section 1142 of the Act, AHRQ collaborates with CMS to define standards for the clinical research studies to address the CED questions and support and endorse the general standards for CED studies (
NCDs also include a determination on whether the item or service under consideration has a Medicare benefit category under Part A or Part B,
In addition to these coverage pathways, CMS has established a Clinical Trial Policy (CTP) NCD 310.1. The CTP policy is applied when Medicare covers routine care items and services (but generally not the technology under investigation) in a clinical study that is supported by certain Federal agencies. The CTP coverage policy was developed in 2000.
Lastly, CMS has established the Parallel Review program. In the September 17, 2010,
Parallel Review is a mechanism for FDA and CMS to simultaneously review the clinical data submitted by a manufacturer about a medical device to help decrease the time between FDA's approval of an original or supplemental premarket approval (PMA) application or granting of a de novo classification request (De Novo request) and the subsequent CMS proposed NCD. Parallel Review has two stages: (1) FDA and CMS meet with the manufacturer to provide feedback on the proposed pivotal clinical trial, and (2) FDA and CMS concurrently review (“in parallel”) the clinical trial results submitted in the PMA application, or De Novo request. FDA and CMS independently review the data to determine whether it meets their respective Agency's standards and communicate with the manufacturer during their respective reviews. This program relies upon a technology having a comprehensive evidence base to support the clinical analysis for the NCD.
While FDA and CMS have a well-established history of collaboration in the review of evidence for emerging medical technologies, FDA and CMS must consider different legal authorities and apply different statutory standards when making marketing authorization and coverage decisions, respectively, for medical devices. Generally, FDA makes marketing authorization decisions based on whether the relevant statutory standard for safety and effectiveness is met, while CMS generally makes NCDs based on whether an item or service is reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury for individuals in the Medicare population. These two reviews are separate and are conducted independently by the two agencies. The FDA review of devices does not require a focus specifically on the Medicare population.
Among other objectives, FDA conducts a premarket review of certain devices to evaluate their safety and effectiveness and determine if they meet the applicable standard to be marketed in the United States. FDA approval or clearance alone does not entitle that technology to Medicare coverage, given separate Medicare statutory coverage requirements. While FDA reviews devices to ensure they meet applicable safety and effectiveness standards, there is often limited evidence regarding whether the device is clinically beneficial for Medicare patients. Of
In general, as discussed, under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, Congress required CMS to determine whether items and services are reasonable and necessary to diagnose or treat an illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member for an individual with Medicare. For CMS, the evidence base underlying FDA's decision to approve or clear a device for particular indications for use has often been crucial for determining Medicare coverage through the NCD process. CMS looks to the evidence supporting FDA market authorization and the device's approved or cleared indications for use for evidence generalizable to the Medicare population, data on improvement in health outcomes, and the durability of those outcomes. If there is no data on those elements in the Medicare population, it is difficult for CMS to make an evidence-based decision on whether the device is reasonable and necessary for the Medicare population.
CMS considers whether the evidence shows that the item or service will improve the health of Medicare patients recognizing that Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies.
Under the TCET coverage pathway, CMS will coordinate with FDA and manufacturers of Breakthrough Devices as those devices move through the FDA premarket review processes to ensure timely Medicare coverage decisions following any FDA market authorization, as described in detail later in this section. The FDA Breakthrough Devices Program is an evolution of the Expedited Access Pathway Program and the Priority Review Program. See section 515B of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360e-3; see also final guidance for industry entitled, “Breakthrough Devices Program.”
FDA's Breakthrough Devices Program is not for all new medical devices; rather, it is only for those that FDA determines meet the standards for Breakthrough Device designation. In accordance with section 515B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3), the Breakthrough Devices Program is for medical devices and device-led combination products
FDA has explained in guidance that because decisions on requests for Breakthrough designation will be made prior to marketing authorization, FDA considers whether there is a “reasonable expectation that a device could provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis relative to the current standard of care (SOC) in the U.S” for purposes of the designation. This reasonable expectation can be supported by sources including “literature or preliminary data (bench, animal, or clinical)”.
In the June 28, 2023,
CMS proposed that the TCET pathway use the NCD and CED processes to expedite Medicare coverage of certain Breakthrough Devices. Our proposal noted that the TCET pathway would be voluntary and stated that the goal of the pathway is to reduce uncertainty about coverage options through a pre-market evaluation of potential harms and benefits of technologies while identifying any important evidence gaps. Additionally, CMS' proposal for the TCET pathway provided an evidence development framework to provide manufacturers with opportunities for increased pre-market engagement with CMS and, to reduce manufacturer burden, increased flexibility to address evidence gaps to support Medicare coverage. In the proposed notice, CMS stated that we anticipate accepting up to five TCET candidates annually.
While the FDA reviews devices to ensure they meet applicable safety and effectiveness standards, there is often limited evidence regarding whether the device is clinically beneficial to Medicare patients at the time of FDA market authorization. As such, we do not believe that it is appropriate to grant all FDA market authorized Breakthrough Devices automatic coverage solely based on their Breakthrough Designation. Furthermore, when there is a lack of evidence specific to the Medicare population, it makes it difficult for CMS to ensure that devices are not posing additional risks in the Medicare population. Continuing to develop evidence generalizable to the Medicare population is important not only to payers, but is critical for patients, their caregivers, and their treating clinicians to make the most informed decisions for their treatment. We believe that it is important to require manufacturers participating in any innovative coverage pathway, such as TCET, to produce evidence that demonstrates the health benefit of the device and the related services for patients with demographics similar to that of the Medicare population.
Our proposal centered on Breakthrough Devices because we believe this is the area with the most immediate need, particularly considering the unique FDA criteria for Breakthrough designation status. We agree with commenters about the importance of promoting innovation across all items and services covered under Medicare. However, because we have consistently heard from interested parties about the need for more rapid coverage for Breakthrough Devices, we are focusing on Breakthrough Devices in this final notice.
The TCET pathway will result in a more transparent, predictable, and efficient Medicare coverage pathway that balances multiple competing interests. Coverage under CED can expedite beneficiary access to innovative technologies (and result in improved health outcomes) by ensuring that systematic patient safeguards—including assurance that the technology is provided to clinically appropriate patients—are in place that reduce the risks inherent to new technologies, or to new applications of older technologies. In the absence of CED, technologies with limited evidence would likely not be covered. Further, TCET represents a substantial transformation of how CMS conducts coverage reviews and is responsive to extensive feedback from interested parties. The pathway has broad support from the vast majority of commenters and CMS views this as the best option to provide coverage for emerging technologies for which the available evidence is insufficient to support broad national coverage at the time of FDA market authorization. As we gain experience with the TCET pathway, we may consider expanding its application to other items and services.
Congress has established an exception in section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act that authorizes the Medicare program to pay for items and services in the case of research conducted pursuant to section 1142 of the Act, so long as the items or services are reasonable and necessary to carry out the purposes of that section. Section 1142(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the Secretary, acting through the AHRQ Director, to “conduct and
Under CED, AHRQ has endorsed and supported research for various items and services that were of particular importance to the Medicare population, but where the existing medical evidence was not sufficient to permit coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. AHRQ's endorsement has occurred when AHRQ officials have used staff resources to identify the general characteristics and attributes that are necessary for any Medicare sponsored clinical trial. The general AHRQ recommendations have been included in current and prior CED guidance documents. AHRQ officials have also reviewed each NCD where CED has been proposed or finalized, focusing on the specific methodological approach that would be necessary for coverage in each specific CED NCD. AHRQ's support has been documented and included in the record for each CED NCD. AHRQ's expertise has been essential to support CED under sections 1142 and 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act.
Additionally, HHS has recognized that AHRQ's endorsement of standards for qualifying clinical trials under section 1142 of the Act can provide the statutory authority for Medicare coverage for items and services under the Medicare program in circumstances outside of the CED policy. The Medicare clinical trial policy, now established at section 310 of the Medicare National Coverage Determinations Manual, relies on the same statutory authority and has been effective since September 19, 2000.
Subsequently, CMS, then known as the Health Care Financing Administration, requested AHRQ convene a multi-agency Federal group to develop readily verifiable criteria by which to identify trials that meet an appropriate standard of quality. On October 20, 2000, AHRQ held a public meeting to gather pertinent information and views that would contribute to defining the qualifying criteria used to identify sound clinical trials appropriate for Medicare coverage. The qualifying criteria was developed under the authority to support health care research in section1142 of the Act.
As noted previously, the Medicare statute includes a number of restrictions that limit payment for items and services under Part A and Part B of Title XVIII. Medicare does not cover every item or service just because it was recommended by a physician or healthcare practitioner. Moreover, NCDs do not restrict the practice of medicine, but do inform beneficiaries and practitioners in advance when particular items and services will be covered (or not covered) nationally under Title XVIII. NCDs are binding authorities for Medicare contractors and adjudicators, but not medical practitioners (see 42 CFR 405.1060). NCDs ensure that similar claims are processed and paid in a uniform manner. Physicians can still prescribe or order other services that will not be paid by Medicare, and the beneficiary may agree to pay for items or services that Medicare does not cover. CMS' role in making NCDs is consistent with the agency's statutory authority.
We note that MCIT was repealed before it became effective. As we noted in the November 2021 final rule,
There are a number of ways in which TCET is different, and in fact improves upon, MCIT. The TCET pathway is intended to balance multiple considerations when making coverage determinations: (1) facilitating early, predictable, and safer beneficiary access to new technologies; (2) reducing uncertainty about coverage by evaluating early the potential benefits and harms of technologies with manufacturers; and (3) encouraging evidence development if notable evidence gaps exist for coverage purposes. Further, the TCET pathway aims to coordinate benefit category determination, coding, and payment reviews and to allow any evidence gaps to be addressed through fit-for-purpose studies.
CMS proposed to limit the TCET pathway to certain eligible FDA-designated Breakthrough Devices, since we believe that this is the area with the most immediate need. In our proposal, we stated that appropriate candidates for the TCET pathway would include those devices that are—
• Certain FDA-designated Breakthrough Devices;
• Determined to be within a Medicare benefit category;
• Not already the subject of an existing Medicare NCD; and
• Not otherwise excluded from coverage through law or regulation.
CMS also indicated that the majority of coverage determinations for diagnostic laboratory tests granted Breakthrough designation status should continue to be determined by the MACs through existing pathways.
We agree that CMS should reconsider an NCD for Breakthrough Devices if safety concerns arise. We noted in the proposed procedural notice and reiterate in this final notice that CMS retains the right to reconsider an NCD at any point in time. If an NCD is repealed, MACs could deny coverage for particular devices. CMS may also issue a national non-coverage NCD that would bar all coverage for the device.
Under MolDx, a program developed by the Palmetto MAC, the MAC determines coverage for molecular diagnostic tests and other molecular pathology services. Several other MACs have implemented the MolDx program as part of their operations. In the MolDx program, the MACs review all evidence that a manufacturer produces to determine whether an item or service meets the reasonable and necessary standard.
We note that Congress in section 1834A(g)(2) of the Act specifically granted the Secretary the authority to designate one or more MACs to establish coverage policies for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and did not specify any exceptions for certain tests.
We acknowledge there may be instances where manufacturers and CMS agree that an NCD is appropriate for a diagnostic laboratory test. In those instances where manufacturers believe that additional evidence generation may be needed to satisfy the Medicare coverage standard, we encourage manufacturers to contact CMS to discuss options for their specific technology.
In response to public comments seeking clarification regarding the scope of the references to diagnostic laboratory tests in the proposed notice, we have added language to clarify that we intend to refer to IVDs, including diagnostic laboratory tests, in the discussion of appropriate candidates. Other non-IVD diagnostic devices, such as diagnostic imaging devices, may be considered for TCET.
CMS proposed that the appropriate timeframe for manufacturers to submit TCET pathway nominations is approximately 12 months prior to the anticipated FDA decision on a submission as determined by the manufacturer. In the proposal, CMS stated that manufacturers of certain FDA-designated Breakthrough Devices may self-nominate to participate in the TCET pathway. The proposed notice outlined the information that manufacturers should include in the self-nomination packet. CMS' proposal explained how CMS intended to consider nominations, including a meeting with the manufacturer to discuss the technology and a CMS-FDA meeting to learn more information about the technology. The proposal also noted that a technology may undergo a benefit category review as part of the nomination review process.
To provide greater transparency, consistency, and predictability we intend to release proposed prioritization factors for TCET nominations in the near future. We look forward to communicating additional details on our planned approach in the near future and will provide an opportunity for public comment.
When CMS issues the proposed NCD following approval or clearance of the Breakthrough Device by FDA, the proposed NCD will include one or more benefit categories to which CMS has determined the Breakthrough Device falls. CMS will review and consider public comment on the proposed NCD before reaching a final determination on the BCD(s).
CMS' proposal introduced the Evidence Preview (EP) concept, which is a focused literature review that would provide early feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, including any evidence gaps, for a specific item or service. It is intended to inform judgments by CMS and manufacturers about the best available coverage options for an item or service and offers greater efficiency, predictability and transparency to manufacturers and CMS on the state of the evidence and any notable evidence gaps. In the proposed notice, CMS expressed the intent for EPs to be supported by a contractor using standardized evidence grading, risk of bias assessment, and applicability assessment. CMS proposed that the EP would be made publicly available on the CMS website when a tracking sheet is posted announcing the opening of the NCD. Additionally, CMS proposed to share the EP with the Medicare Administrative Contractors following a manufacturer's decision to withdraw from the TCET pathway.
The methodological quality, or risk of bias, for randomized and nonrandomized individual study designs will be assessed using a components approach, considering each study for specific aspects of design or conduct (such as allocation concealment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or use of methods to address potential confounding), as detailed in AHRQ's
The contractor will also assess the applicability of the included studies to
Lastly, the contractor will identify and list any relevant evidence-based guidelines, specialty society recommendations, consensus statements, or appropriate use criteria that apply to the item or service addressed by the Evidence Preview (EP). The reviewed evidence is then qualitatively synthesized by the contractor. There are strict non-disclosure agreements in place with the contractor to ensure the protection of proprietary information.
CMS will establish CMS-staff-level contact points to facilitate timely communication with manufacturers, but CMS disagrees with having manufacturers communicate directly with the evidence review contractor. The contractor is performing work on CMS' behalf, and CMS needs to be involved in all discussions. Manufacturers are encouraged to review and provide feedback to CMS on the EP as soon as possible, ideally within 30 days. CMS believes it is important to provide flexibility especially as manufacturers gain experience with the TCET pathway and is not incorporating a specific timeframe in the final notice for manufacturers to submit feedback on an EP.
When developing a literature search, we will carefully review the bibliography that manufacturers provide in their nomination. CMS recognizes that the most crucial study data from pivotal trial(s) may not yet be published in the pre-market stage. If unpublished studies are included in the review, the evidence review in the NCA, if one is opened, will reflect the final labeling of the FDA market authorized device and supplemental analyses and/or published, peer-reviewed report of the clinical study.
We disagree with commenters that an evidence preview should not be specific to a particular technology. We believe it is important to understand any material evidence gaps for CMS coverage for a particular technology as early as possible so that manufacturers can develop a plan to address them so that the device might be eligible for future Medicare coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
CMS' proposal stated that upon finalization of the EP, the manufacturer may decide to pursue national coverage under the TCET pathway or to withdraw from the pathway. CMS proposed that if the manufacturer decided to continue, the next step would include a manufacturer's submission of a formal NCD letter expressing the manufacturer's desire for CMS to open a TCET NCD analysis. We stated in the proposal that most, if not all, of the information needed to begin the TCET NCD would already be included in the TCET pathway nomination and the EP, but we invited the manufacturer to submit any additional materials the manufacturer believed would support the TCET NCD request.
CMS' proposal introduced the Evidence Development Plan (EDP) concept. CMS proposed that EDPs would be developed by the manufacturer to address any evidence gaps identified in the EP. In the proposal, CMS indicated that EDPs may include fit-for-purpose (FFP) study designs, including traditional clinical study designs and those that rely on secondary use of real-world data, provided that those study designs follow all applicable CMS guidance documents. CMS proposed that the development of an EDP would include CMS-AHRQ collaboration to evaluate the EDP to ensure that it meets
We are finalizing our proposal to have EDPs include a schedule of updates and interim analyses along with a projected NCD reconsideration window. CMS continues to believe that a core purpose of the EDP is to anticipate the appropriate timing of reconsideration, but we recognize that timelines may in some cases need to be revised. Particularly for EDPs that propose longer CED timeframes, CMS agrees that they should include plans for interim reporting to ensure adequate progress and timely completion. Interim reports should also disclose any meaningful changes to prespecified study protocols, which are essential to transparency. These updates are in the interest of CMS, manufacturers, and the public because they provide early feedback on the viability of planned studies that use real-world data and offer early feedback on real-world outcomes. Any changes to the anticipated NCD reconsideration window will be reflected on the CED website.
A concern about generalizability depends on whether a new technology's effectiveness would reasonably be expected to vary between the populations studied in clinical trials and Medicare recipients, who are often older and have more comorbidities. If an Evidence Preview identifies generalizability as a material evidence deficiency, postmarket FFP studies may be used to confirm that expected
Supportive clinical evidence that a device is reasonable and necessary in the Medicare population, including evidence regarding the device's safety and effectiveness for the Medicare population, is crucial to approve coverage for a device under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Such evidence is used to determine whether a new technology meets the appropriateness criteria of the longstanding Medicare Program Integrity Manual Chapter 13 definition of reasonable and necessary.
CMS expects to publish detailed guidance on acceptable FFP studies in the coming months. CMS is closely tracking developments in this emerging field.
CMS proposed that if a device that is accepted into the TCET pathway receives FDA marketing authorization, CMS will initiate the NCD process by posting a tracking sheet following FDA market authorization (that is, the date the device receives PMA approval; 510(k) clearance; or the granting of a De Novo request) pending a CMS and AHRQ-approved Evidence Development Plan (in cases where there are evidence gaps as identified in the Evidence Preview). In the proposal CMS stated that the goal is to have a finalized EDP no later than 90 business days after FDA market authorization.
CMS' proposal stated that the process for Medicare coverage under the TCET pathway would follow the NCD statutory timeframes in section 1862(l) of the Act. CMS would start the process by posting a tracking sheet and elements of the finalized Evidence Preview, specifically the non-proprietary information, which would initiate a 30-day public comment period. Following further CMS review and analysis of public comments, CMS would issue a proposed TCET NCD and EDP within 6 months of opening the NCD. There would be a 30-day public comment period on the proposed TCET NCD and EDP, and a final TCET NCD would be due within 90 days of the release of the proposed TCET NCD.
CMS stated in its proposal that feedback from the relevant specialty societies and patient advocacy organizations, in particular, their expert input and recommended conditions of coverage (with special attention to appropriate beneficiary safeguards), is especially important for technologies covered through the TCET pathway. In the proposal, CMS strongly encourages these organizations to provide specific feedback on the state of the evidence and their recommended best practices for the emerging technologies under review upon opening a national coverage analysis. We noted that while we prefer to have this information during the initial public comment period upon opening the NCD, we realize that, in many cases, it may take longer for these organizations to provide their collective perspectives to CMS since these technologies will have only recently received FDA market authorization. Further, we stated that since CMS may consider any information provided in the public domain while undertaking an NCD, CMS encourages these organizations to publicly post any additional feedback, including relevant practice guidelines, within 90 days of CMS' opening of the NCD. We specified that information considered by CMS to develop the proposed TCET NCD will become part of the NCD record and will be reflected in the bibliography as is typical for NCDs.
In our proposal we noted that FDA market-authorized Breakthrough Devices are often followed by similar devices that other manufacturers develop. Additionally, we expressed that we believe it is important to let physicians and their patients make decisions about the best available treatment depending upon the patient's individual situation. We proposed that to be eligible for coverage under a TCET NCD, similar devices would be subject to the same coverage conditions, including a requirement to propose an EDP. CMS sought public comment on whether similar devices to the Breakthrough Device should be addressed under a separate NCD or should be subject to the same coverage conditions as the Breakthrough Device, including a requirement to propose an EDP.
CMS proposed that the duration of transitional coverage through the TCET pathway would be time-limited and be tied to the CMS- and AHRQ-approved Evidence Development Plan (EDP). The proposal stated that the review date specified in the EDP will provide 1 additional year after study completion to allow manufacturers to complete their analysis draft one or more reports and submit them for peer-reviewed publication. In the proposed notice, we stated that we anticipate the transitional coverage period would last for 3 to 5 years as evidence is generated to address evidence gaps identified in the Evidence Preview.
CMS proposed to conduct an updated evidence review within 6 calendar months of the review date specified in the EDP. Additionally, as part of this process, CMS would review applicable practice guidelines and consensus statements and consider whether the conditions of coverage remain appropriate. CMS proposed that based upon this assessment, when appropriate, CMS would open an NCD reconsideration by posting a proposed decision that includes one of the following outcomes: (1) an NCD without evidence development requirements; (2) an NCD with continued evidence development requirements; (3) a non-coverage NCD; or (4) Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) discretion.
In the proposed notice, CMS noted that other potential expedited coverage mechanisms, such as Parallel Review, remain available. CMS stated in the proposal that eligibility for the Parallel Review program is broader than for the TCET pathway and could facilitate expedited CMS review of non-Breakthrough Devices. Further, CMS' proposal expressed CMS' intent to work with FDA to consider updates to the Parallel Review program and other initiatives to align procedures, as appropriate.
CMS proposed to respond to TCET nominations within 30 days. Additionally, CMS' proposal indicated our intent to accept up to five candidates into the pathway annually. (We note that our responses to comments received regarding TCET timeframes, as well as the annual number of candidates accepted into the TCET pathway, are addressed in section II.A.3. of the notice.) CMS stated in the proposed notice that we intend to prioritize innovative medical devices that, as determined by CMS, have the potential to benefit the greatest number of individuals with Medicare.
In some cases, the available evidence may satisfy the reasonable and necessary standard only within a narrow context and be appropriate for coverage on an individual claim determination basis. However, broad local or national coverage requires evidence generalizable to the intended Medicare beneficiary population.
In general, clinical evidence relevant to the Medicare population is necessary to achieve a favorable Medicare coverage decision. We anticipate that most TCET nominations will be for Breakthrough Devices where robust Medicare beneficiary protections and evidence generation are important to achieving optimal health outcomes. Additionally, CMS anticipates that most devices considered for the TCET pathway will be devices reviewed under a De Novo request or PMA submission. However, we note that devices subject to the 510(k) clearance pathway may qualify for Breakthrough designation (see 21 U.S.C. 360e-3(c)). Although the 510(k) review standard is substantial equivalence of a new device to a legally marketed device, the principles of safety and effectiveness underlie the substantial equivalence determination in every 510(k) review.
CMS intends to issue FFP study guidance soon. We believe the guidance will clarify CMS' expectations for FFP studies, particularly those that rely on the secondary use of real-world data.
A discussion of CMS payment for data submission into registries is beyond the scope of this document.
The final notice incorporates many of the provisions of the proposed notice and revises some of the provisions as proposed in response to issues raised by commenters. Based on CMS' analysis of the topics raised during the public comment period, CMS made several changes between the proposed notice and final notice, specifically the following:
• Nominations:
++ We incorporate an opportunity for manufacturers to submit a non-binding letter of intent to nominate a potentially eligible device approximately 18 to 24 months before they anticipate FDA market authorization.
++ We clarify that when CMS is aware that manufacturers will likely pursue the TCET pathway for devices where appropriate clinical endpoints are uncertain, we may preemptively conduct a clinical endpoints review and may convene a MEDCAC. We note that submission of a non-binding letter of intent may avoid delays in TCET reviews.
++ We have revised the timeframe for reviewing TCET nominations. We will review nominations on a quarterly basis.
++ CMS clarifies that nominations for devices that are already FDA market authorized or those anticipated to receive an FDA decision on market authorization within 6 months of nomination will not be accepted for TCET because TCET relies on extensive pre-market engagement to expedite coverage reviews. CMS notes that if the timelines for this pre-market engagement are shortened, it is unlikely that an NCD will be finalized within 6 months of FDA market authorization. We note that pursuing an NCD outside of TCET or MAC discretion is also available.
• Evidence Preview (EP):
++ We clarify that the evidence review contractor's role is to support the CAG staff by conducting a rapid systematic literature review and summarizing the evidence based on a modified GRADE methodology. We further clarify that the contractor's role is to support and accelerate CMS reviews, but we will perform extensive quality assurance on contracted reviews, independently complete substantial portions of the EP, and determine coverage policy.
++ We state that if an NCD is opened, an evidence summary, including a disclosure of which contractor completed the review, will be posted with the tracking sheet on the CMS website for public comment.
++ We have changed our position on sharing the full EP with the MACs if a manufacturer withdraws from the TCET pathway. While we believe that an EP will be a fair reflection of the strength of evidence available at that time to support Medicare coverage, we acknowledge that manufacturers may withdraw from the TCET pathway for reasons unrelated to the strength of evidence. Nonetheless, EPs represent a substantial investment of public resources, and we will publicly post an evidence summary for devices that are withdrawn from the TCET pathway without an evidence gap assessment.
• Evidence Development Plans (EDPs):
++ We state that EDPs should incorporate interim reporting to ensure adequate progress and timely completion. Interim reports should also disclose any meaningful changes to prespecified study protocols, which are essential to transparency.
++ We note that the forthcoming FFP guidance will provide information on study designs and analysis methods that are FFP. We expect TCET CED studies to be registered and listed on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Additionally, we specify that a summary of the EDPs and the anticipated CED NCD reconsideration window will be posted on the CMS website so the public can stay informed throughout the process.
• Coverage of Similar Devices:
++ We clarify that NCDs are limited to particular items or services, but note that some NCDs apply to products for the same indication. In these instances, we will follow the existing NCD process detailed in section 1862(l) of the Act. We recognize that some differences may exist for technologies in a class that may result in a distinct benefit/risk profile, and each will be evaluated on its own merit.
++ We clarify that any follow-on devices in the TCET pathway will not count toward CMS' annual limit.
• Prioritizing Requests—We express our intent to release proposed prioritization factors for TCET nominations soon to provide greater transparency, consistency, and predictability.
• TCET Transparency—We indicate that information on TCET devices will be added to the NCD Dashboard, including the number of devices in the TCET pathway, the date of nomination, the date of acceptance, and the date the NCD process was initiated.
All other provisions are being finalized as proposed. The Addendum that follows provides the updated process and procedures for the TCET pathway that reflect the changes made in response to public comments.
Based on our initial assessment of Breakthrough Devices applying the characteristics we list in section I.C. of the Addendum to this notice regarding appropriate candidates for the TCET pathway, we anticipate receiving approximately eight nominations for the TCET pathway per year. Based on current resources, we do not anticipate the TCET pathway will accept more than five candidates per year. Since we estimate fewer than 10 respondents, the information collection requirements are exempt in accordance with the implementing regulations of the PRA at 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As we gain experience with the TCET pathway, we will provide an updated analysis if we receive a higher number of respondents than anticipated.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on August 2, 2024.
We describe in this Addendum the process and procedures for how interested parties and the public may engage with CMS to facilitate the TCET pathway. The topics addressed in the notice include the following: (1) TCET general principles; (2) appropriate candidates for the TCET pathway; (3) procedures for the TCET pathway; and (4) general roles.
We continue to work with various sectors of the scientific and medical communities to develop and publish guidance documents on our website that describe our approach when analyzing scientific and clinical evidence when developing NCDs. In response to feedback from interested parties, the 2024 CED and Evidence Review guidance documents incorporate recommendations for when FFP studies may be used to close material evidence gaps. FFP studies are those where the study design, analysis plan, and study data can credibly answer the research question. Additionally, CMS intends to
Since CMS started covering technology in the context of clinical studies almost two decades ago, the timing of evidence development and the stages of the technology development lifecycle have evolved. Over the past few years, innovative technologies have come on the market earlier in the technology development lifecycle and reached the market with limited or developing evidence for coverage purposes. CMS has received inquiries for coverage of new technologies that are early in the product lifecycle, which means the clinical evidence is just starting to accumulate. For new technologies, there is often insufficient clinical evidence to support broad national coverage at this point.
In general, CMS relies heavily on health outcomes data, especially as it relates to the Medicare population when proposing an NCD. Early in the product lifecycle, there is usually evidence about whether the product is safe and may produce the intended result: for example, a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is believed to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. However, there is often little evidence in the early stages of the product lifecycle regarding health outcomes (for example, mortality, disease progression, or impact on a patient's quality of life). When premarket, pivotal clinical study data is collected to support an application to FDA for market authorization, it provides clinical evidence for a defined population enrolled in the study.
If there is health outcome evidence for a new technology, it may not be generalizable to the Medicare population if Medicare beneficiaries are insufficiently represented in pivotal clinical studies.
While CMS has attempted to streamline the NCD process with the Parallel Review program, we recognize that most emerging technologies are likely to have limited or developing bodies of clinical evidence that may not have included the Medicare population (that is, individuals over age 65, people with disabilities, and those with end-stage renal disease). Many Medicare beneficiaries have comorbid medical conditions, and those factors may have limited their participation in certain clinical trials. Additionally, we recognize the importance that applicable clinical trials reflect the demographic and clinical diversity among the Medicare beneficiaries who are the intended users of the intervention. At a minimum, this requires the availability of data on, and attention to, the intended users' racial and ethnic backgrounds, sex and gender, age, disabilities, important comorbidities, and relevant social determinants of health. We believe that the TCET pathway can support manufacturers that are interested in working with CMS to generate additional evidence that is applicable to Medicare beneficiaries and that may demonstrate improved health outcomes in the Medicare population to support more expeditious national Medicare coverage. While we believe that leveraging the statutorily established NCD process will allow us to responsibly cover new, innovative technologies with limited or developing evidence, it is important that we provide an evidence generation framework that, when appropriate, not only develops reliable evidence for patients and their physicians but also provides safeguards to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries are protected and continue to receive high-quality care.
Specifically, CED has been used to support evidence development for certain innovative technologies that are likely to show benefit for the Medicare population when the available evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the technologies are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. In instances where there is limited evidence, CED may be an option for Medicare beneficiaries seeking earlier coverage for promising technologies. CED has been a pathway whereby, after a CMS and AHRQ review, Medicare covers items and services on the condition that they are furnished in the context of approved clinical studies or with the collection of additional clinical data. Participation in a CED trial is voluntary, but beneficiaries are protected by separate regulations, including those at 45 CFR part 46 related to the protection of human research subjects.
With respect to evidence generation, the TCET pathway will build upon CMS and AHRQ's ongoing collaboration on the CED NCD process. We anticipate that many NCDs conducted under the TCET pathway will result in CED decisions, and AHRQ will continue to review all CED NCDs consistent with current practice. Additionally, AHRQ will collaborate with CMS as appropriate on evidence development activities, such as the EP and EDP, conducted to support Medicare coverage under the TCET pathway and will have opportunities to offer feedback throughout the process that will be shared with manufacturers. Approvals related to evidence development will be a joint CMS-AHRQ decision.
With respect to beneficiary safeguards, the NCD process allows for coverage with appropriate safeguards for Medicare beneficiaries, including coverage criteria based on evidence regarding eligibility, frequency, provider experience, site of service, or availability of supporting services. Specifically, CMS develops clinician and institutional requirements after careful review of expert physicians' specialty society guidelines and clinical study results. These guidelines and recommendations are often part of NCDs. Unless these coverage criteria are established within coverage determinations, devices could be provided by unqualified individuals, offered at inappropriate facilities, and utilized by patients who may be unlikely to benefit or likely to experience adverse effects.
Coverage under a CED NCD can expedite earlier beneficiary access for individuals who volunteer to participate in the clinical studies of innovative technologies while ensuring that systematic patient safeguards, including assurance that the technology is provided to clinically appropriate patients, are in place to reduce the potential risks of new technologies, or to new applications of older technologies. CMS' 2024 CED guidance document includes specific patient protections
Input from interested parties is important to CMS, and we are particularly interested in engagement with patient advocacy organizations and medical specialty societies as they have valuable expertise and first-hand experience in the field that will help CMS develop Medicare coverage policies. Because the TCET pathway would utilize the current NCD process, these opportunities for engagement with interested parties are also available in TCET.
CMS is committed to ensuring Medicare beneficiaries have access to promising emerging, technologies. CMS' goal is to finalize an NCD for technologies accepted into and continuing in the TCET pathway, within 6 months after FDA market authorization. The TCET pathway builds on prior initiatives, including CED. The TCET pathway will meet the following principles:
• Medicare coverage under the TCET pathway is limited to certain Breakthrough Devices that receive market authorization for one or more indications for use covered by the Breakthrough Device designation when used according to those indications for use. Manufacturers of FDA-designated Breakthrough Devices that fall within a Medicare benefit category may self-nominate to participate in the TCET pathway on a voluntary basis.
• CMS may conduct an early evidence review (Evidence Preview, more details can be found in section. I.D.1.h. of this Addendum) before FDA decides on marketing authorization for the device and discuss with the manufacturer the best available coverage pathways depending on the strength of the evidence.
• Prior to FDA marketing authorization, CMS and manufacturers may discuss any evidence gaps for coverage purposes and the types of studies that may need to be completed to address the gaps, which could include the manufacturer developing an evidence development plan and confirming that there are appropriate safeguards for Medicare beneficiaries.
• If CMS determines that further evidence development (that is, CED) is the best coverage pathway, CMS will work with the manufacturers to reduce the burden on manufacturers, clinicians, and patients while maintaining rigorous evidence requirements. CMS will work to ensure we are not requiring duplicative or conflicting evidence development with any FDA postmarket requirements for the device.
• CMS does not believe that an NCD that requires CED as a condition of coverage should last indefinitely, including under the TCET pathway. If the evidence supports a favorable coverage decision under CED, coverage will be time-limited to facilitate the timely generation of sufficient evidence to inform patient and clinician decision making and to support a Medicare coverage determination under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
• Manufacturers and CMS have the option to withdraw from the pathway up until CMS opens the NCD by posting a tracking sheet. CMS will not publicly disclose participation of a manufacturer in the TCET pathway prior to CMS' posting of an NCD tracking sheet unless the manufacturer consents or has already made this information public or disclosure is required by law. CMS requests that a manufacturer who wishes to withdraw from the TCET pathway notify CMS by email.
Appropriate candidates for the TCET pathway would include those devices that are—
• FDA-designated Breakthrough Devices;
• Determined to be within a Medicare benefit category;
• Not already the subject of an existing Medicare NCD; and
• Not otherwise excluded from coverage through law or regulation.
In section 201(h)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)(1)), the definition of device includes IVD products, such as diagnostic laboratory tests. See 21 CFR 809.3. IVDs, including diagnostic laboratory tests, are a highly specific area of coverage policy development, and CMS has historically delegated review of many of these products to specialized MACs. We believe that the majority of coverage determinations for IVDs granted Breakthrough designation should continue to be determined by the MACs through existing pathways.
The TCET pathway has three stages: (1) premarket; (2) coverage under the TCET pathway; and (3) transition to post-TCET coverage.
Manufacturers may submit a non-binding letter of intent to nominate a potentially eligible device for the TCET pathway approximately 18 to 24 months before anticipated FDA marketing authorization as determined by the manufacturer.
The letter of intent to nominate a device for the TCET pathway may be submitted electronically via the Coverage Center Website using the “Contact Us” link at
• Name of the manufacturer and relevant contact information (name of contact person, address, email, and telephone number).
• Name of the product.
• Succinct description of the technology and the disease or condition the device is intended to diagnose or treat.
• Date of FDA Breakthrough Device Designation.
• Expected regulatory pathway (for example, PMA, De Novo, 510(k)).
• Expected completion date for pivotal clinical study.
CMS will email the manufacturer to confirm that a submitted letter of intent has been received by CMS.
The appropriate timeframe for manufacturers to submit nominations to CMS is approximately 12 months prior to when the manufacturer anticipates an FDA decision on a submission. Manufacturers are generally aware of when they intend to submit their application, and the FDA has agreed to review time goals as part of its device user fee program.
Under the TCET pathway, CMS will conduct extensive work in the pre-market period to shorten coverage review timeframes after devices are FDA market-authorized. Since TCET is forward-looking and extensive pre-market engagement is essential, CMS will not accept nominations for already FDA market authorized devices or those anticipated to receive an FDA decision market authorization within 6 months of nomination. CMS may be unable to reach a final NCD within the expedited timeframes for TCET nominations submitted or accepted less than 12 months before anticipated FDA market authorization. We note that the option to pursue an NCD or LCD outside of the TCET pathway is available for these technologies.
The manufacturer may submit a nomination for the TCET pathway electronically via the Coverage Center website using the “Contact Us” link at
• Name of the manufacturer and relevant contact information (name of contact person, address, email, and telephone number).
• Name of the product.
• Succinct description of the technology and disease or condition the device is intended to diagnose or treat.
++ Description of the product, including components (for example, single-use catheter, power source, charger system, etc.)
++ Description of the use context (for example, inpatient, ASC, outpatient clinic, home)
++ Description of the disease or condition that the product is intended to treat or diagnose and mechanism of action for the product
• State of development of the technology (that is, in pre-clinical testing, in clinical trials, currently undergoing premarket review by FDA). The submission of a copy of FDA's letter granting Breakthrough Device Designation and the PMA application, De Novo request or premarket notification (510(k)) submission, if available, is preferred.
++ Date of FDA Breakthrough Device Designation
++ Expected regulatory pathway (for example, PMA, De Novo, 510(k))
++ Current development status (for example, pre-clinical testing, in clinical trials, under FDA premarket review, post-market)
• A brief statement explaining why the device is an appropriate candidate for the TCET pathway as described under section I.C. of this Addendum (“C. Appropriate Candidates”).
++ Rationale for Breakthrough Designation
++ Unmet need the product addresses
• A statement describing how the medical device addresses the health needs of the Medicare population.
++ Description of the condition with respect to the full US population (for example, incidence, prevalence, significance)
++ Description of the applicable Medicare population(s) (for example, estimated population size, other considerations specific to the Medicare beneficiary population)
++ Description of the magnitude of the expected benefit from the product
• A statement that the medical device is not excluded by statute from Part A or Part B Medicare coverage or both, and a list of Part A or Part B or both Medicare benefit categories, as applicable, into which the manufacturer believes the medical device falls. Additionally, manufacturers are encouraged to provide additional specific information to help facilitate benefit category determinations.
++ Product not excluded from Medicare coverage by statute
++ Most likely benefit categories (for example, inpatient, physician services, DME, etc.)
++ A comprehensive list of peer-reviewed, English-language publications that are relevant to the nominated Breakthrough Device as applicable/available.
++ Relevant background literature (for example, important publications CMS should review for context).
++ Relevant unpublished clinical studies regarding the safety/efficacy of the product, with the expected publication date for each.
++ Relevant published clinical studies regarding the safety/efficacy of the product.
Two good sources of information to facilitate the development of nomination submissions are the CMS Coverage website (
CMS will email the manufacturer to confirm that a submitted nomination appears to be complete and is under review. This email will include the date that CMS initiated the review of the complete nomination. CMS will contact the manufacturer for more information if the nomination is incomplete.
CMS will accept suitable TCET candidates quarterly. If a suitable nomination is not selected in the first review, it will be automatically considered in the subsequent quarter. Manufacturers will not need to resubmit to be considered in a subsequent quarter. Since TCET is forward-looking and extensive pre-market engagement is essential, nominations for Breakthrough Devices anticipated to receive an FDA decision on market authorization within 6 months may not be accepted since CMS will be unable to reach a final NCD within the expedited timeframes. It is possible that a nominated device that is not accepted in a first review may be accepted during a subsequent review even though FDA's decision on market authorization is anticipated within 6 months. If this occurs, CMS will work with the manufacturer to expedite the review as practically achievable.
CMS may contact the manufacturer to request supplemental information to ensure a timely review of the nomination. Once CMS decides to provisionally accept or decline a nomination, CMS will communicate their decision to the manufacturer by email with their designated point of contacts. Acceptance into TCET should not be viewed as a final determination that a device fits within a benefit category. When CMS issues the proposed NCD for a Breakthrough Device that has received FDA marketing authorization, the proposed NCD will include one or more benefit categories to which CMS has determined the Breakthrough Device falls. CMS will review and consider public comment on the proposed NCD before reaching a final determination on the BCD(s).
Following the submission of a complete TCET nomination, CMS will offer an initial meeting with the manufacturer to review the nomination within 20 business days of receipt of a complete nomination. In this initial meeting, the manufacturer is expected to describe the device, its intended application, place of service, a high-level summary of the evidence supporting its use, and the anticipated timeframe for FDA review. CMS will answer any questions about the TCET process. CMS intends for these meetings to be held remotely to reduce travel burden on manufacturers and expeditiously meet these timeframes. These meetings will have a duration of 30 minutes. If a manufacturer declines to meet or if there is difficulty finding a mutually convenient time for the meeting, then CMS action on the nomination may be delayed.
After CMS initiates review of a complete, formal nomination, representatives from CMS will meet with their counterparts at FDA to learn more information about the technology in the nomination to the extent the Agencies have not already done so. These discussions may help CMS gain a better understanding of the device and potential FDA review timing.
As noted in the Memorandum of Understanding
Following discussions with FDA, CMS may initiate a benefit category review if all other pathway criteria have been met. Emerging devices may fit within a Medicare benefit category, but that does not mean all medical devices will fall within a benefit category. If CMS believes that the device, before a decision on market authorization by FDA, is likely to be payable through one or more benefit categories, the device may be accepted into the TCET pathway. This is an interim step that is subject to change upon FDA's decision regarding market authorization of the device. Acceptance into TCET should not be viewed as a final determination that a device fits within a benefit category. However, if it appears that a device, before a decision on market authorization by FDA, will not fall under an existing benefit category, the TCET nomination will be denied, and the rationale will be discussed in the denial letter. CMS will likely not assess every submitted application for a benefit category review, as the TCET pathway is limited in size per the discussion in section I.G. of this Addendum.
As noted previously, upon completion of CMS' review of the nomination, including the initial meeting with the manufacturer, discussions with FDA, and benefit category determination, CMS will notify the manufacturer by email whether the product has been accepted into the TCET pathway. In instances where CMS does not accept a nomination, CMS will offer a virtual meeting with the manufacturer to answer any questions and discuss other potential coverage pathways.
Following acceptance into the TCET pathway, CMS will initiate an Evidence Preview, which is a systematic literature review that would provide early feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the publicly available evidence for a specific item or service. The EP will be a focused, but not necessarily exhaustive, review that will help CMS to identify any material evidence shortfalls. We believe the review conducted for the Evidence Preview will offer greater predictability and transparency to manufacturers and CMS on the state of the evidence and any notable evidence gaps for coverage purposes. It is intended to efficiently inform judgments by CMS and manufacturers about the best available coverage options for an item or service. CMS intends for the EP to be supported by a contractor using established rigorous review criteria that were developed in collaboration with AHRQ, have undergone detailed testing during the past year, and are reflected in the CMS NCA Evidence Review guidance. The contractor's role is to conduct a rapid systematic literature review and summarize the evidence based on a modified GRADE methodology. The contractor supports and accelerates CMS reviews, but CMS performs extensive quality assurance on contracted reviews, independently contributes substantial portions of the EP, and ultimately determines appropriate coverage policy. To initiate an EP, CMS will request written permission from the manufacturer to share any confidential commercial information (CCI) included in the nomination submission with the contractor. CMS anticipates that the EP will take approximately 12 weeks to complete once the review is initiated, following acknowledgment of an accepted nomination in the TCET pathway. More time may be needed to complete the review in the event the product is novel, has conflicting evidence, or other unanticipated issues arise.
CMS will share the EP with the manufacturer via email and will offer a meeting to discuss it. The EP will have been previously shared with AHRQ and may also be shared with FDA to obtain their feedback, as relevant. Representatives from those Agencies may participate in the EP meeting at their discretion. Manufacturers will have an opportunity to propose corrections to any errors, contribute supplemental materials, and raise any important concerns with the EP before it is finalized.
CMS will review the manufacturer feedback on the EP and work with our contractor to revise the draft, as appropriate, prior to finalization. Upon finalizing the EP, manufacturers may request a meeting to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence and discuss the available coverage pathways (examples include an NCD, which could include CED, or seeking coverage decisions made by a MAC). These meetings to discuss the EP may be conducted virtually or in person and will be scheduled for 60 minutes. If an NCD is opened, an evidence summary, including a disclosure of which contractor completed the review, will be posted with the tracking sheet on the CMS website for public comment.
There will be no publicly posted tracking sheet for manufacturers who withdraw from the TCET pathway after the completion of an EP. While CMS believes the EP will be a fair reflection of the strength of evidence available at that time to support Medicare coverage, CMS acknowledges that manufacturers may withdraw from the TCET pathway for reasons unrelated to the strength of evidence. Since the development of an EP review represents a substantial investment of public resources in a thorough evidence review for pre-market devices, CMS will publicly post a summary of the evidence. This summary will not include an evidence gap assessment.
Upon finalization of the EP, the manufacturer may decide to pursue national coverage under the TCET pathway or to withdraw from the pathway. If the manufacturer decides to continue, the next step will include submitting a formal NCD request cover letter expressing the manufacturer's desire for CMS to open a TCET NCD analysis. Most, if not all, of the information needed to begin the TCET NCD would be included in the initial TCET pathway nomination and the EP. However, CMS invites the manufacturer to submit any additional materials the manufacturer believes would support the TCET NCD request.
If CMS and/or AHRQ identifies evidence gaps during the EP, the manufacturer should also submit an evidence development plan (EDP) to CMS that sufficiently addresses the evidence gaps identified in the EP. The EDP should be submitted to CMS simultaneously with the formal NCD request cover letter. The EDP may include fit-for-purpose (FFP) study designs including traditional clinical study designs and those that rely on secondary use of real-world data, provided that those study designs follow all applicable CMS guidance documents. Additional information can be found here:
An FFP study is one where the study design, analysis plan, and study data are appropriate for the question the study aims to answer. FFP study designs, which include traditional clinical study designs as well as those that rely on secondary use of real-world data, align sample size, duration, study type, analytic methods, etc., based on the utilization and risk profile of the item or service. We believe that permitting FFP study designs will be less burdensome for manufacturers and address the public's concerns that CED should be time-limited to facilitate the timely generation of evidence that can inform patient and clinician decision making and lead to predictable Medicare coverage.
Postmarket FFP study proposals, particularly those that rely on real world data, have the potential to generate evidence that complements tightly controlled premarket traditional clinical trials by demonstrating external validity. Nonetheless, manufacturers should be aware that these studies require considerable planning in data validation, linkage, and transformation; specification of the study protocol and documentation of any changes; data analysis; and reporting. The study design, patient inclusion criteria, primary and secondary endpoints, treatment setting, analytic approaches, timing of outcome assessment, and data sources should be fully pre-specified in the submitted protocol. CMS notes that though FFP studies that use real-world data may be less burdensome in terms of data collection, they may take more time to complete due to lags in the availability of administrative claims needed for the analysis. When writing EDPs, manufacturers should propose clinically meaningful benchmarks for each study outcome and provide supporting evidence. FFP studies addressing specific evidence deficiencies identified in the EP may be proposed as part of a broader EDP.
Manufacturers should incorporate a continued access study into their EDP to maintain market access between the completion of the primary EDP, the refresh of the evidence review, and the finalization of a decision regarding post-TCET coverage. The continued access study may rely on a claims analysis, focusing on device utilization, geographic variations in care, and access disparities for traditionally underserved populations.
Because of the tight timeframes needed to effectuate CMS' goal of finalizing a TCET NCD within 6 months after FDA market authorization, manufacturers are strongly encouraged to begin developing a rigorous proposed EDP as soon as possible after receiving the finalized EP. To meet the goal of having a finalized EDP within approximately 90 business days after FDA market authorization, the manufacturer is encouraged to submit an EDP to CMS as soon as possible after FDA market authorization.
Once CMS receives the EDP from the manufacturer, CMS will have 30 business days to review the proposed EDP and provide written feedback to the manufacturer. During this time, CMS will collaborate with AHRQ to evaluate the EDP to ensure that it addresses the material evidence gaps identified in the EP and meets established standards of scientific integrity and relevance to the Medicare population. CMS will incorporate AHRQ's feedback on the EDP and will email the consolidated feedback to the manufacturer. Soon after providing written feedback, CMS will schedule a meeting with the manufacturer, which may also include AHRQ, to discuss any recommended refinements and address any questions.
In the EDP meetings, the manufacturer should be prepared to demonstrate: (1) a compelling rationale for its evidence development plan; (2) the study design, analysis plan, and data for any CED studies are all fit for purpose; and (3) any CED studies sufficiently addresses threats to internal validity. The EDP should include clear enrollment, follow-up, study completion dates for included studies, and the timing and content of scheduled updates to CMS on study progress. For FFP studies with expected completion timeframes longer than 5 years, EDPs should incorporate interim reporting to ensure adequate progress and timely completion. Interim reports should also disclose any meaningful changes to prespecified study protocols, which are essential to transparency. Manufacturers should present and justify their study outcomes and performance benchmarks.
Following the EDP meeting, the manufacturer and CMS will have another 60 business days to make any adjustments to the EDP. We recognize that, in some instances, manufacturers may require additional time to develop and refine their EDP. In these instances, CMS may provide additional time to manufacturers, but we note that delays in submitting and revising an EDP may substantially impact the overall timeline for providing coverage under the TCET pathway. Elements of the CMS and AHRQ approved EDPs, specifically the non-proprietary information, will be made publicly available on the CMS website upon posting of the proposed TCET NCD. In addition, the anticipated CED NCD reconsideration window will also be posted. The forthcoming FFP guidance will provide information on the level of detail necessary to establish
In instances where the manufacturer's EDP is insufficient to meet CMS' and AHRQ's established standards and cannot be approved, CMS may exercise its option to withdraw acceptance into the TCET pathway as noted in section I.B. of this Addendum. We anticipate this will be a rare occurrence as CMS will make every effort to provide flexibility and information to manufacturers to facilitate the development of EDPs.
CMS follows applicable statutory requirements when developing coverage policy at the national level, which includes an open and transparent process. Though some elements of coverage review can be accelerated, gathering and reviewing meaningful public comment takes time. When CMS undertakes an NCD, we draw upon our analysis of the available evidence to identify the specific beneficiaries and conditions of coverage that are appropriate for the item or service. CMS also strongly considers information from patient advocacy organizations, specialty society guidance, expert consensus and recommendations for beneficiary selection, provider training and certification requirements, and facility requirements.
If a device that is accepted into the TCET pathway receives FDA market authorization, CMS will initiate the NCD process by posting a tracking sheet following FDA market authorization (that is, the date the device receives PMA approval; 510(k) clearance; or the granting of a De Novo request) pending a CMS and AHRQ-approved Evidence Development Plan (in cases where there are evidence gaps as identified in the Evidence Preview). The manufacturer may also withdraw from the TCET pathway at this stage in the process, in which case CMS would not proceed with the NCD review described in this section. As previously noted, the goal is to have a finalized EDP no later than 90 business days after FDA market authorization.
The process for Medicare coverage under the TCET pathway would follow the NCD statutory timeframes in section 1862(l) of the Act. CMS would start the process by posting a tracking sheet and an evidence summary from the finalized Evidence Preview, specifically the non-proprietary information, which would initiate a 30-day public comment period. Following further CMS review and analysis of public comments, CMS would issue a proposed TCET NCD and EDP within 6 months of opening the NCD. There would be a 30-day public comment period on the proposed TCET NCD and EDP, and a final TCET NCD would be due within 90 days of the release of the proposed TCET NCD. Our goal is to release the proposed and final NCD before the statutory deadline that applies to all NCDs. More information on the NCD process is outlined in the August 7, 2013
Since the evidence base for these emerging technologies will likely be incomplete and practice standards not yet established, we believe that feedback from the relevant specialty societies and patient advocacy organizations, in particular, their expert input and recommended conditions of coverage (with special attention to appropriate beneficiary safeguards), is especially important for technologies covered through the TCET pathway.
Upon opening an NCD analysis, CMS strongly encourages these organizations to provide specific feedback on the state of the evidence and their suggested approaches to best practices for the emerging technologies under review. While CMS prefers to have this information during the initial public comment period upon opening the NCD, we realize that in many cases, it may take longer for these organizations to provide their collective perspectives to CMS since these technologies will have only recently received FDA market authorization. Since CMS may consider any information provided in the public domain while undertaking an NCD, CMS encourages these organizations to publicly post any additional feedback, including relevant practice guidelines, within 90 days of CMS' opening of the NCD. These organizations are encouraged to notify CMS when recommendations have been posted. All information considered by CMS to develop the proposed TCET NCD will become part of the NCD record and will be reflected in the bibliography as is typical for NCDs.
FDA market-authorized Breakthrough Devices are often followed by similar devices that other manufacturers develop. We believe that it is important to let physicians and their patients make decisions about the best available treatment, depending upon each patient's situation. NCDs are limited to particular items or services but it is possible that more than one device could fall under the same NCD because it addresses the same indication. We recognize that some differences may exist for technologies in a class that may result in a distinct benefit/risk profile, and each will be evaluated on its own merit.
In these instances, CMS will follow the existing NCD process detailed in section 1862(l) of the Act.
The duration of transitional coverage through the TCET pathway will be tied to the CMS- and AHRQ-approved EDP. CMS expects that TCET CED studies will be listed on the clinicaltrials.gov website, and a summary of the EDPs as well as the anticipated CED NCD reconsideration window will be posted on the CMS website so the public can stay informed throughout the process. The review date specified in the EDP will provide 1 additional year after study completion to allow manufacturers to complete their analysis, draft one or more reports, and submit them for peer-reviewed publication. Given the short timeframes in the TCET pathway, an unpublished publication draft that a journal has accepted may also be acceptable. CMS will consider the minimum period of transitional coverage necessary to address the evidence gaps identified in the EP. In general, we anticipate this transitional coverage period may last for 5 or more years as evidence is generated to address evidence gaps. However, CMS retains the right to reconsider an NCD at any point in time.
TCET provides time-limited coverage for devices with the potential to deliver improved outcomes to the Medicare population but do not yet meet the reasonable and necessary standard for coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Consequently, TCET coverage is conditioned on further evidence development as agreed in a CMS- and AHRQ-approved EDP.
CMS intends to initiate an updated evidence review within 6 calendar months of the review date specified in the EDP. CMS intends to engage a third-party contractor to conduct a systematic literature review using detailed requirements that CMS developed in collaboration with AHRQ. The
Based upon the updated evidence review and consideration of any applicable practice guidelines, CMS, when appropriate, will open an NCD reconsideration by posting a proposed decision that proposes one of the following outcomes: (1) an NCD without evidence development requirements; (2) an NCD with continued evidence development requirements; (3) a non-coverage NCD; or (4) permitting local MAC discretion under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Neither an FDA market authorization nor a CMS approval of an Evidence Development Plan guarantees a favorable coverage decision. Standard NCD processes and timelines will continue to apply, and following a 30-day public comment period, CMS will have 60 days to finalize the NCD reconsideration.
The steps previously described for the TCET process and for obtaining a CMS coverage determination are illustrated in the diagram:
CMS has outlined the general roles of each participant in the TCET pathway.
The manufacturer may voluntarily choose to email a non-binding letter of intent to CMS to express intent to nominate a device for the TCET pathway. The manufacturer initiates formal consideration for TCET by voluntarily submitting a complete nomination as outlined previously under “1. b. Nominations for the TCET Pathway,” of section I.D. of this Addendum titled “Procedures for the TCET Pathway.” In the interest of expediting CMS decision making, the manufacturer should be prepared to quickly and completely respond to all issues and requests for information raised by the CMS reviewers. If CMS does not receive information from manufacturers in a timely fashion, CMS review timelines will be lengthened, potentially significantly. Manufacturers are encouraged to submit any materials they plan to present during meetings with CMS at least 7 days in advance of the scheduled meeting. Manufacturers should be prepared with the resources and skills to successfully develop, conduct, and complete the studies included in the EDP.
CMS will provide a secure and confidential nomination and review process as outlined previously in section I.D. of this Addendum. CMS will initiate review of nominations for the TCET pathway by retrieving applications from the secure mailbox and communicating with FDA regarding Breakthrough Devices seeking coverage under the TCET pathway. CMS will also oversee the work of the contractor conducting evidence reviews and will perform extensive quality assurance on contracted reviews, independently contribute substantial portions of the EP, and ultimately determine appropriate coverage policy. Along with AHRQ, CMS will review and make decisions regarding EDPs. Throughout all stages of the TCET pathway, CMS intends to maintain open communication channels with FDA, AHRQ, and the relevant manufacturer and fulfill its statutory obligations concerning the NCD process.
FDA will keep open lines of communication with CMS on Breakthrough Devices seeking coverage under the TCET pathway as resources permit. Participation in the TCET pathway does not change the review standards for FDA market authorization of a device, which are separate and
Currently, AHRQ reviews all CED NCDs established under section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act. Consistent with section 1142 of the Act, AHRQ collaborates with CMS to define standards for clinical research studies to address the CED questions and meet the general standards for CED studies (
While the TCET pathway will be limited to Breakthrough Devices, other potential expedited coverage mechanisms, such as Parallel Review, remain available. Eligibility for the Parallel Review program is broader than for the TCET pathway and could facilitate expedited CMS review of non-Breakthrough Devices. To achieve greater efficiency and to simplify the coverage process generally, CMS intends to work with FDA to consider updates to the Parallel Review program and other initiatives to align procedures, as appropriate.
CMS intends to review TCET pathway nominations on a quarterly basis. CMS anticipates accepting up to five TCET candidates annually based on current resources. Any follow-on devices in the TCET pathway will not count toward CMS' annual limit. To provide greater transparency, consistency, and predictability, we intend to release proposed prioritization factors in the near future. The public will have an opportunity to provide comment on CMS' proposed prioritization factors. In the interim, CMS intends to prioritize innovative medical devices that, as determined by CMS, have the potential to benefit the greatest number of individuals with Medicare.
While CMS will not divulge the identity of specific manufacturers or devices in the TCET pathway prior to the opening of an NCD, we believe it is important to provide transparency regarding the devices accepted into the pathway. Specifically, CMS will include information such as the number of devices in the TCET pathway, the date of nomination, the date of acceptance, and the date the NCD process is initiated into future iterations of the NCD Dashboard. We intend to update the NCD Dashboard quarterly.