Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Maritime Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) is amending its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by updating the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (“Registry”) as required by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007.
This rule is effective October 1, 2024.
Copies of this document are available on the internet at the Commission's website:
Ami Joy Dziekan, (202) 326-2648, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
To comply with the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-188, 122 Stat. 635, codified at 15 U.S.C. 6152) (“Act”), the Commission is amending the TSR, which is contained in 16 CFR part 310, by updating the fees entities are charged for accessing the Registry. Specifically, the revised rule increases (1) the annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data from $78 to $80 per area code, and (2) the maximum amount that will be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data from $21,402 to $22,038. Entities may add area codes during the second six months of their annual subscription period, and the fee for those additional area codes increases from $39 to $40.
These increases are in accordance with the Act, which specifies that beginning after fiscal year 2009, the dollar amounts charged shall be increased by an amount equal to the amounts specified in the Act, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the average of the monthly consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) (“CPI”) for the most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds the CPI for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008. The Act also states that any increase shall be rounded to the nearest dollar and that there shall be no increase in the dollar amounts if the change in the CPI since the last fee increase is less than one percent. For fiscal year 2009, the Act specified that the original annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data was $54 per area code, or $27 per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period, and that the maximum amount that would be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data would be $14,850.
The determination of whether a fee change is required and the amount of the fee changes involves a two-step process. First, to determine whether a fee change is required, we measure the change in the CPI from the time of the previous increase in fees. There was an increase in the fees for fiscal year 2024. Accordingly, we calculated the change in the CPI since last year, and the increase was 3.0 percent. Because this change is over the one percent threshold, the fees will change for fiscal year 2025.
Second, to determine how much the fees should increase this fiscal year, we use the calculation specified by the Act set forth above: the percentage change in the baseline CPI applied to the original fees for fiscal year 2009. The average value of the CPI for July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008, was 211.702; the average value for July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, was 314.145, an increase of 48.40 percent. Applying the 48.40 percent increase to the base amount from fiscal year 2009, leads to a $80 fee for access to a single area code of data for a full year for fiscal year 2025, an increase of $2 from last year. The actual amount is $80.14 but when rounded, pursuant to the Act, $80 is the appropriate fee. The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year increases by one dollar to $40 (rounded from $40.07. The maximum amount charged increases to $22,038 (rounded from $22,038.05).
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The fee adjustments set forth in this final rule are mandated by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. Accordingly, the amendments to the TSR are merely technical in nature, making notice and comment unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the TSR and assigned the following existing OMB Control Number: 3084-0169. The amendments outlined in this final rule pertain only to the fee provision (§ 310.8) of the TSR and will not establish or alter any record keeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements elsewhere in the TSR.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Trade practices.
Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 6101-6108.
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notification; order granting modification to alternative.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing a minor, technical modification to an alternative that permits manufacturer reporting of certain device malfunction medical device reports (MDRs) in summary form on a quarterly basis. We refer to this alternative as the “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program.”
This modification applies to voluntary summary reports for reportable malfunction events that manufacturers become aware of on or after August 29, 2024.
Michelle Rios, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1116, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6107; or James Myers, 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.
Every year, FDA receives over two million MDRs of suspected device-associated deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions. The Agency's MDR program is one of the postmarket surveillance tools FDA uses to monitor device performance, detect potential device-related safety issues, and contribute to benefit-risk assessments. Malfunction reports represent most of the MDRs FDA receives on an annual basis.
Medical device reporting requirements for manufacturers are set forth in section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i) and the regulations contained in part 803 (21 CFR part 803). Among other things, part 803 requires the submission of an individual MDR when a manufacturer becomes aware of information, from any source, that reasonably suggests that one of its marketed devices malfunctioned and the malfunction of the device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur (§§ 803.10(c)(1) and 803.50(a)(2)). Throughout this document, we refer to such malfunctions as “reportable malfunctions” or “reportable malfunction events.”
Under § 803.19, FDA may grant exemptions or variances from, or alternatives to, any or all of the reporting requirements in part 803, and may change the frequency of reporting to quarterly, semiannually, annually, or other appropriate time period. FDA may grant such modifications upon request or at its discretion, and when granting such modifications, FDA may impose other reporting requirements to ensure the protection of the public health (see § 803.19(c)).
In accordance with section 519(a)(1)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act and § 803.19, FDA granted to manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes, as identified in the FDA Product Classification Database (
FDA believes that for the devices in eligible product codes, quarterly, summary reporting in accordance with the conditions of the alternative is as effective as the current MDR regulatory requirements for purposes of identifying and monitoring potential device safety concerns and device malfunctions. The program allows manufacturers to submit summary reports with event narratives that help FDA more efficiently process malfunction reports and identify malfunction trends. In addition, FDA's determination of product code eligibility and the conditions of participation in the program serve to require submission of individual 30-day or 5-day malfunction reports in circumstances where such reports are necessary to protect public health.
Under § 803.19(d), FDA “may revoke or modify in writing an exemption, variance, or alternative reporting requirement if we determine that revocation or modification is necessary to protect the public health.”
To meet the conditions of the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program (VMSR), manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes who elect to participate in the program must submit summary malfunction reports electronically using Form FDA 3500A (Ref. 1) pursuant to the malfunction reporting summary format described in the document published in 2018 (83 FR 40973, August 17, 2018). However, since the program began in 2018, FDA has revised Form FDA 3500A. For example, FDA has added a “check box” and field in which the manufacturer may specifically indicate that a report is a “summary report” and enter the number of events being summarized. Additionally, FDA has added a field that facilitates clearer identification of a report as a VMSR summary reports. Use of these features of the revised Form 3500A allows FDA to more efficiently identify VMSR summary reports and the number of events summarized, enabling more effective review of these reports. Certain fields in the Form FDA 3500A have also changed so that they no longer align exactly with the instructions describing the required malfunction reporting summary format for the program. In addition, FDA's MDR references for adverse event codes have been updated.
Revising the required format for summary malfunction reports submitted under the VMSR Program to align with the most current Form FDA 3500A and adverse event codes will avoid confusion and help ensure the accuracy and consistency of information in summary malfunction reports. Consistent, accurate summary reports are necessary to ensure that both FDA
• Use of dedicated fields to identify the report as a VMSR summary malfunction report. Instead of using XML tags “<NOE> XXX <NOE>” in the “Describe Event or Problem” section of Form FDA 3500A, manufacturers must use the following fields:
In the “Exemption/Variance Number” field, include the term “VMSR.”
In the “Type of Reportable Event” section of the Form FDA 3500A, check the “Summary Report” box and identify the number of events in the “Number of Events Summarized” field.
• Update the adverse events code references, from Method, Results and Conclusions to “Type of Investigation”, “Investigation Findings”, and “Investigation Conclusions”.
• Remove references to the specific number identifiers for the Form FDA 3500A sections from the description of the malfunction summary reporting format and individual reporting conditions (as applicable) to remove inconsistency with the current version of the Form FDA 3500A. The sections are instead identified only by description name.
FDA is republishing the conditions that manufacturers must follow if they choose to participate in the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program with the changes described in section II of this document incorporated, along with a few editorial changes for clarity. Under § 803.19, FDA has granted the manufacturers of devices within eligible product codes, as identified in FDA's Product Classification Database (
The Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program does not apply to reportable death or serious injury events, which are still required to be reported to FDA within the mandatory 30-calendar-day timeframe, under §§ 803.50 and 803.52, or within the5-work day timeframe under § 803.53. Thus, if a manufacturer participating in the program becomes aware of information reasonably suggesting that a device that it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, then the manufacturer must submit an individual MDR for that event because it involves a reportable death or serious injury.
The reporting requirements at § 803.53 also continue to apply to manufacturers participating in the program. Under § 803.53(a), a 5-day report must be filed if a manufacturer becomes aware of an MDR reportable event that necessitates remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health. Further, under § 803.53(b), if FDA has made a written request for the submission of a 5-day report, the manufacturer must submit, without further requests, a 5-day report for all subsequent reportable malfunctions of the same nature that involve substantially similar devices for the time period specified in the written request. FDA may extend the time period stated in the original written request if the Agency determines it is in the interest of the public health (see § 803.53(b)).
Manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes may continue submitting individual, 30-day malfunction reports in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52 if they choose to do so. However, those manufacturers may submit all reportable malfunction events for devices in eligible product codes in the summary format and according to the schedule described below in section III.D. and F, unless one of the following individual reporting conditions applies:
After submitting a 5-day report required under § 803.53(a), all subsequent reportable malfunctions of the same nature that involve substantially similar devices must be submitted as individual MDRs in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52 until the date that the remedial action has been terminated to FDA's satisfaction. Summary reporting of malfunctions may then resume on the regularly scheduled summary reporting cycle. Submission of reportable malfunctions associated with 5-day reports in this manner will assist FDA in monitoring the time course and resolution of the issue presenting an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health.
When a device is the subject of a recall involving the correction or removal of the device to address a malfunction and that correction or removal is required to be reported to FDA under part 806 (21 CFR part 806), all reportable malfunction events of the same nature that involve the same device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer must be submitted as individual MDRs in accordance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52 until the date that the recall is terminated. As stated in 21 CFR 806.10(a), FDA regulations require
If a manufacturer becomes aware of reportable malfunction events before the date that the requirement to submit individual reports is triggered and a summary report for those events has not yet been submitted to FDA, then the manufacturer must submit any of those malfunction events related to the recall in a summary MDR format within 30-calendar days of submitting the required report of correction or removal. In the summary MDR, the manufacturer must indicate the check box of recall in the “Remedial Action Initiated, Check Type” in the electronic Form FDA 3500A.
If FDA has determined that individual malfunction reports are necessary to provide additional information and more rapid reporting for an identified public health issue involving certain devices, manufacturers must submit reportable malfunction events for those devices as individual MDRs in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52. Under these circumstances, FDA will provide written notification to manufacturers of relevant devices that individual MDR submissions are necessary. FDA will provide further written notification when manufacturers of those devices may resume participation in summary malfunction reporting.
The requirement to submit individual reports under this condition is triggered on the date the manufacturer receives the written notification from FDA. If a manufacturer became aware of reportable malfunction events before the date that the requirement to submit individual reports is triggered and a summary report for those events has not yet been submitted to FDA, then the manufacturer must submit any of those malfunction events for the identified devices to FDA within 30-calendar days of receiving notification from FDA.
FDA may determine that a specific manufacturer is no longer allowed to participate in the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for reasons including, but not limited to, failure to comply with applicable MDR requirements under part 803, failure to follow the conditions of the program, or the need to monitor a public health issue. In that case, FDA will provide written notification to the device manufacturer to submit individual malfunction reports in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52. The requirement to submit individual reports under this condition is triggered on the date the manufacturer receives the written notification from FDA. If a manufacturer became aware of reportable malfunction events before the date that the requirement to submit individual reports is triggered under this condition and a summary report for those events has not yet been submitted to FDA, then the manufacturer must submit those malfunction events to FDA within 30-calendar days of receiving notification from FDA.
If a manufacturer becomes aware of information reasonably suggesting a reportable malfunction event has occurred for a device that the manufacturer markets and the reportable malfunction is a new type of malfunction that the manufacturer has not previously reported to FDA for that device, then the manufacturer must submit an individual report for that reportable malfunction in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52. After the manufacturer submits this initial individual report, subsequent malfunctions of this type may be submitted in summary form according to the reporting schedule in Table 1, unless another individual reporting condition applies.
In general, if a manufacturer obtains information required in a malfunction summary report (see section III.D. describing the required content of a summary report), that the manufacturer did not provide because it was not known or was not available when the manufacturer submitted the initial summary malfunction report, the manufacturer must submit the supplemental information to FDA in an electronic format in accordance with § 803.12(a). The supplemental information must be submitted to FDA by the submission deadline described in the Summary Malfunction Reporting Schedule (Table 1), according to the date on which the manufacturer becomes aware of the supplemental information. Manufacturers must continue to follow the requirements for the content of supplemental reports set forth at § 803.56(a) through (c), meaning that on a supplemental or follow up report, the manufacturer must: (a) indicate that the report being submitted is a supplemental or follow up report; (b) submit the appropriate identification numbers of the report that you are updating with the supplemental information (
However, if a manufacturer submits a summary malfunction report and subsequently becomes aware of information reasonably suggesting that an event (or events) summarized therein represents a reportable serious injury or death event, or a new type of reportable malfunction, then the manufacturer must submit reports as follows: The manufacturer must submit an initial, individual MDR for the identified serious injury, death, or new type of reportable malfunction event within 30-calendar days of becoming aware of the additional information. The manufacturer must simultaneously submit a supplement to the initial malfunction summary report reducing the number of events summarized accordingly, so that the total number of events remains the same.
As discussed in section II, we are revising the malfunction summary reporting format to reflect updates to the
Manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes who elect to participate in the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program must submit summary malfunction reports in the format described below. FDA believes that submission of summary reports in the format described below will provide the most compact and efficient reporting mechanism for streamlining malfunction reporting that still provides sufficient detail for FDA to monitor devices effectively.
Separate summary malfunction reports must be submitted for each unique combination of brand name, device model, and MDR adverse event device problem code(s).
Each summary malfunction report must include at least the following information collected on Form FDA 3500A and must be submitted in an electronic format:
• Exemption/Variance Number—Type in “VMSR”.
• Describe Event or Problem—The device event narrative must include a detailed description of the nature of the events and, if relevant and available, we recommend including a range of patient age and weight and a breakdown of patient gender, race, and ethnicity. Inclusion of patient age, weight, gender, race, and ethnicity is not a required entry for the form; however, FDA recommends including these descriptors in a text narrative if the information is available and if a malfunction is more likely to affect a specific group of patients.
• Brand Name—Include the device brand name.
• Common Device Name and Product Code—Include the common name of the device and its product code.
• Manufacturer Name, City, and State—Add the manufacturer's name and identify its location.
• Model Number and other device identifying information—Enter the device model and/or catalog number and lot number(s) and/or serial number(s) for the devices that are the subject of the MDR. Include any device identifier (DI) portion of the unique device identifier for the device version or model that is the subject of the MDR.
• Contact Office (and Manufacturing Site(s) for Devices)—Enter the name, address, and email of the manufacturer reporting site (contact office), including the contact name for the summary report being submitted. Enter the name and address of the manufacturing site(s) for the device, if different from the contact office.
• Phone Number of Contact Office—Include a phone number for the contact office.
• Combination Products (if applicable)—Check if the report involves a combination product.
• Type of Reportable Event—Check “Malfunction.” Manufacturers must check the “Summary Report” box and identify the number of events being summarized.
• Adverse Event Problem—Enter the corresponding codes, including as many codes as necessary to describe the event problem and evaluation for the reportable malfunction events that are being summarized:
• Additional Manufacturer Narrative—Provide a summary of the results of the investigation for the reported malfunctions, including any follow up actions taken, and any additional information that would be helpful in understanding how the manufacturer addressed the malfunction events summarized in the report. Enter a breakdown of the malfunction events summarized in the report: the number of devices that were returned, the number of devices that were labeled “for single use” (if any), and the number of devices that were reprocessed and reused (if any).
Device-led combination products are included in this alternative. The electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) data system and instructions (Ref. 2) support use of the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for device-led combination products.
Manufacturers submitting malfunction summary reports or supplemental reports to a malfunction summary report must use electronic reporting (Ref. 2) to submit those reports on a quarterly basis according to the schedule in Table 1. The summary malfunction report must include the MDR number, which consists of the registration number of the manufacturer, the year in which the event is being reported, and a 5-digit sequence number. Information included in a malfunction summary report must be current as of the last date of the quarterly timeframe identified in the first column of Table 1.
Under §§ 803.17 and 803.18, manufacturers are required to develop, maintain, and implement written MDR procedures and establish and maintain MDR event files, and those requirements remain applicable for manufacturers that elect to participate in this program. Among other things, a manufacturer must develop, maintain, and implement MDR procedures that provide for timely transmission of complete MDRs to FDA. (See § 803.17(a)(3).) Manufacturers participating in the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program must update their internal MDR processes and procedures to provide for submitting summary malfunction reports within the Summary Malfunction Reporting Schedule.
The goal of the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program is to permit manufacturers of devices under certain product codes to report malfunctions on a quarterly basis and in a summary format, as outlined in the Medical Device User Fee Agreement (MDUFA) IV Commitment Letter (Ref.
Consistent with the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter (Ref. 3), FDA has identified eligible product codes for the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program in FDA's Product Classification Database, available on FDA's website
If FDA determines that individual malfunction reports are necessary from a specific manufacturer or for specific devices, FDA will notify relevant manufacturers that they must submit individual reports and provide an explanation for that decision and, as appropriate, the steps necessary to return to summary, quarterly reporting. The Agency also notes that, under § 803.19(d), it may revoke or modify in writing an exemption, variance, or alternative reporting requirement if it determines that revocation or modification is necessary to protect the public health.
FDA recognizes that new product codes will be created in the future. In general, as explained in the document published in 2018 (83 FR 40973, August 17, 2018), FDA does not intend to consider devices under product codes in existence for fewer than 2 years to be eligible for the program, unless the new product code was issued solely for administrative reasons. However, FDA will periodically evaluate new product codes after they have been in existence for 2 years to determine whether they should be added to the list of product codes eligible for the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program. If FDA determines that a new product code should be added, then it will grant manufacturers of devices within that product code the same alternative under § 803.19 for malfunction events associated with those devices and update FDA's Product Classification database accordingly to reflect the changes.
Manufacturers can send a request for a product code to be added to the list of eligible product codes and for manufacturers of devices within that product code to be granted the same alternative for malfunction events associated with those devices to the
In accordance with section 519(a)(1)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act and § 803.19(d), FDA is modifying the alternative granted to manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes, as identified in the FDA's Product Classification Database, available on FDA's website
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they also are available electronically at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary interim rule and request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 250-yard radius of the MARMAC 306 cable laying barge, and a J.F. Brennan construction barge #4132. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by cable laying operations being conducted in the vicinity of the West Passage Narragansett Bay, Jamestown, RI, between the Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge and south to Dutch Island. When enforced, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England.
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 Nicholas Easley, Sector Southeastern New England, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-827-4160, email
On May 31, 2024, Orsted, an offshore wind energy developer, made the Coast Guard aware of their plans for cable laying operations associated with the Revolution Wind Farm project in vicinity of West Passage Narragansett Bay, Jamestown, RI, between Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge, and south to Dutch Island. The cable laying operation involves the use of a MARMAC 306 barge and J.F. Brennan construction barge #4132 that will utilize a thruster system and five high tension anchors extending out from each barge to maintain its position. At times the anchor lines may lie just below the surface of the water.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The details of the project were not known to the Coast Guard in sufficient time to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the cable laying process. The expeditious implementation of this rule is in the public interest because it will help ensure the safety of personnel, waterway users, and the marine environment.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the 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 cable installation starting on September 1, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 250-yard radius of the MARMAC 306 barge and J.F. Brennan construction barge #4132. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the cable installation is being conducted.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on September 1, 2024, until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2024. While the safety zone will be effective through this period, it will only be enforced during active submerged cable laying operations or other instances which may create a hazard to navigation. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 250 yards of the barge MARMAC 306 and J.F. Brennan construction barge #4132 while they are operating in the vicinity of the West Passage Narragansett Bay, Jamestown, RI, between the Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge (41°31′43.7″ N 71°24′18.2″ W) and south to Dutch Island (41°29′47.3″ N, 71°24′16.5″ W). During times of enforcement, all persons or vessels would be prohibited from entering the safety zone without permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If cable laying operations and associated operations are completed before 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2024, enforcement of the safety zone will be suspended, and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone which would impact a 250-yard radius around the MARMAC 306 and J.F. Brennan construction barge #4132 while engaged in cable laying operations. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
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
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 during the hours of operation of the MARMAC 306 J.F. Brennan construction barge #4132, that will prohibit entry within 250 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to install the cable. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60a 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 on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. If we determine that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, the Coast Guard will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
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;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone 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 an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED), including its metabolites and degradates, on or applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils. This tolerance exemption is established on the Agency's own initiative under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), in order to implement the tolerance actions EPA identified during its review of this chemical as part of the Agency's registration review program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
This regulation is effective August 29, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 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-2023-0208, is available at
Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (7510M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0736; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a 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:
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
• Restaurant kitchen cleaning services (NAICS code 561720).
• Milk production, dairy cattle (NAICS code 112120).
• Food processing machinery and equipment merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423830).
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, 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-2023-0208 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 in the Office of the Administrative Law Judges on or before October 28, 2024. Notwithstanding the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 178.25(b), the Office of the Administrative Law Judges has issued an order urging parties to file and serve documents with the Tribunal by electronic means only.
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 EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0208, 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
As noted in the proposal, the
Under section 408(e) of the FFDCA, EPA can establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of a pesticide chemical after publishing a proposed rule and providing 60-day period for public comment, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e). EPA published the proposed rule on March 8, 2024, and provided 60 days for public comment (until May 7, 2024).
No comments were submitted in response to the proposed rule.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if 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, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which 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. . . .”
As noted in the proposed rule, EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information as part of registration review and in support of this action. Based on that review, EPA's proposed rule concluded that the exemptions would be safe.
Since no comments were filed, EPA's assessment of the potential for risks from exposure to these pesticide chemicals and conclusions about the safety of this exemption remains unchanged. Therefore, based on the lack of any aggregate risks of concern, EPA concludes that this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of TAED, and its metabolites and degradates, is safe,
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of TAED, and its metabolites and degradates, when used on or applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils, with no limitation.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) because it establishes tolerance exemptions under FFDCA section 408.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67249), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (
This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which 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 . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific and other data and other relevant information in support of these final tolerance actions. The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide specific registration review decision documents. See the discussion in Unit III. and access the chemical specific registration review documents in each chemical docket at
This action is not a subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income populations. As discussed in more detail in the pesticide specific risk assessments conducted as part of the registration review for the pesticides identified in Unit II., EPA has considered the safety risks for the pesticides subject to this rulemaking and in the context of the tolerance actions set out in this rulemaking. EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Furthermore, EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the CRA, 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.
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation removes the duplicative exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lactic acid and l-lactic acid, herein referred to as l-lactic acid, when applied/used in dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils. In addition, the Agency is amending an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for lactic acid to also include l-lactic acid. The Agency is also establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of l-lactic acid when used as a fruit and vegetable wash in or on all raw agricultural commodities, and for indirect or inadvertent residues of l-lactic acid in or on all livestock commodities, when residues are present therein as a result of animal drinking water coming into contact with hard non-porous surfaces treated with l-lactic acid (
This regulation is effective August 29, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 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-2023-0455, is available at
Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (7510M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-0736; 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:
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311),
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532),
• Restaurant kitchen cleaning services (NAICS code 561720),
• Milk production, dairy cattle (NAICS code 112120),
• Food processing machinery and equipment wholesalers (NAICS code 423830).
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, 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-2023-0455 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 28, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b). Notwithstanding the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 178.25(b), the Office of the Administrative Law Judges has issued an order urging parties to file and serve
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 EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0455, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
As noted in the proposal, the
Under section 408(e) of the FFDCA, EPA can establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of a pesticide chemical after publishing a proposed rule and providing 60-day period for public comment. 21 U.S.C. 346a(e). EPA published the proposed rule on May 5, 2023, and provided 60 days for public comment (until July 5, 2023).
The proposed rule received one anonymous public comment requesting the Agency consider adding another CAS number for l-lactic acid. The comment can be accessed electronically via
This comment does not change any Agency analysis of risk findings for l-lactic acid. The Agency agrees with the commenter that CAS # 79-33-4 should be included in this final rule for the exemption of the requirement of a tolerance.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if 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, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which 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. . . .”
As noted in the proposed rule, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information as part of registration review and in support of this action. Based on that review, EPA's proposed rule concluded that the exemptions would be safe.
EPA's assessment of the potential for risks from exposure to these pesticide chemicals and conclusions about the safety of these exemptions remains unchanged. Therefore, based on the lack of any aggregate risks of concern, EPA concludes that these exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of l-lactic acid, are safe,
Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established for residues of l-lactic acid when used as a fruit and vegetable wash in or on all raw agricultural commodities, and for indirect or inadvertent residues of l-lactic acid in or
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) because it establishes tolerance exemptions under FFDCA section 408.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67249), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (See Unit V.A.) and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. However, EPA's
This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which 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. . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific and other data and other relevant information in support of these final tolerance actions. The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide specific registration review decision documents. See the discussion in Unit III. and access the chemical specific registration review documents in each chemical docket at
This action is not a subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income populations. As discussed in more detail in the pesticide specific risk assessments conducted as part of the registration review for the pesticides identified in Unit II., EPA has considered the safety risks for the pesticides subject to this rulemaking and in the context of the tolerance actions set out in this rulemaking. EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Furthermore, EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the CRA, 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.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(a) Lactic acid (2-hydroxypropanoic acid), including l-lactic acid is exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant growth regulator or fruit and vegetable wash in or on all raw agricultural commodities.
(b) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for indirect or inadvertent residues of lactic acid (2-hydroxypropanoic acid), including l-lactic acid, in or on all livestock commodities, when residues are present therein as a result of animal drinking water coming into contact with hard non-porous surfaces treated with lactic acid (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final action.
The State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA has reviewed Rhode Island's application and has determined that Rhode Island's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Additionally, this document corrects errors made in the State authorization citations published in the March 12, 1990, March 5, 1992, October 2, 1992, and August 9, 2002
This final authorization is effective on October 28, 2024, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by September 30, 2024. Should the EPA receive such comments, it will publish a timely document either: withdrawing the final action or affirming the publication and responding to comments.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2023-0612, at
Liz McCarthy or Joe Hayes, RCRA Waste Management and Lead Branch; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division; U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail code 07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912; phone: (617) 918-1447 or (617) 918-1362; email:
States that have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Rhode Island, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
On September 12, 2023, Rhode Island submitted a complete program revision application seeking authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program. The EPA concludes that Rhode Island's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, the EPA grants final authorization to Rhode Island to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in its authorization application, and as listed below in section G of this document.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its application, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
If the State of Rhode Island is authorized for these changes, a facility in Rhode Island subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such facilities will have to comply with any applicable Federal requirements such as, for example, HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization. The State of Rhode Island will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. The EPA would maintain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
• Conduct inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action to approve these provisions will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which the State of Rhode Island is requesting authorization are already effective under State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Rhode Island initially received final Authorization on January 30, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3780) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. The EPA granted authorization for revisions to Rhode Island's regulatory program on the following dates: March 12, 1990, effective March 26, 1990 (55 FR 9128); March 6, 1992, effective May 5, 1992 (57 FR 8089); October 2, 1992, effective December 1, 1992 (57 FR 45574); August 9, 2002, effective October 8, 2002 (67 FR 51765); December 11, 2007, effective February 11, 2008 (72 FR 70229); and July 26, 2010, effective September 24, 2010 (75 FR 43409). Additionally, on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43478), the EPA granted Rhode Island final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes relating to the Zinc Fertilizer Rule and Burden Reduction Initiative which became effective on September 24, 2010 (75 FR 57188).
On June 25, 2024, Rhode Island submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of additional revisions to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make a final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Rhode Island's hazardous waste program satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. The RIDEM revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated between July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013 (RCRA Clusters XIX through XXII), and the Federal final rule published July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46448, effective January 31, 2014) (Revision Checklist 229), except as listed below; as well as State-initiated changes to the State's previously authorized program. The Rhode Island revisions being authorized in this action include provisions that contain purely Federal functions which are not delegable to States. The non-delegable Federal program areas include import/export requirements reserved as part of the Federal foreign relations function and manifest registry administered solely by the EPA. Rhode Island has appropriately adopted these provisions by leaving the authority with the EPA for implementation and enforcement.
Rhode Island's regulatory references are to Rhode Island Code of Regulations
The State of Rhode Island revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013 (RCRA Clusters XIX through XXII), and the Federal final rule published July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46448, effective January 31, 2014) (Revision Checklist 229); except the final rules published October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64668, effective December 29, 2008) (Revision Checklist 219), December 1, 2008 (73 FR 72912, effective December 31, 2008) (Revision Checklist 220), January 8, 2010 (75 FR 1236, effective July 7, 2010) (Revision Checklist 222), and December 20, 2010 (75 FR 79304, effective March 7, 2011) (Revision Checklist 226).
Additionally, Rhode Island is being authorized for the following program areas which are particularly regulated by the State; the regulations for which have been analyzed by the EPA to ensure the Rhode Island regulations are equally or more protective of human health and the environment as the Federal regulations, and are neither less stringent, nor narrower in scope than the Federal program. The EPA has determined that the State's regulations for the listed programs are more protective or stricter than the Federal program; thus, these regulations are within the State's authority to maintain under RCRA section 3009. To determine whether the State regulations are stricter and not less stringent than the Federal regulations, the EPA has compared the State regulations to the Federal regulations, including examining interpretations that have been made of the Federal regulations (available in the
(a) Rhode Island has additional, State-specific conditions which wastewater treatment units must meet in order to be exempt from the 40 CFR part 264 standards as allowed by 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6). At 250-RICR-140-10-1.10.2(A)(5), the State allows treatment in an evaporation unit (as defined by the State at 250-RICR-140-10-1.5(A)(30)) under the permit exemption under limited circumstances and only when this does “not allow evaporation of significant amounts of hazardous waste constituents into the air” (250-RICR-140-10-1.7.1(C)(5)(e)(7).
At the Federal level, the wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) exemption has been interpreted to cover many hazardous waste evaporators. Rhode Island is stricter than this Federal approach in that it excludes wastewater evaporation units from being covered under its WWTU exemption. Rather, the State regulates them under its more protective generator treatment in tanks exemption. Furthermore, Rhode Island's generator treatment in tanks exemption is more stringent than the Federal exemption in that it imposes additional requirements designed to effectively regulate evaporators.
However, there may be some evaporators that do not qualify for the WWTU exemption at the Federal level. The EPA has concluded that it should look at the overall RCRA program and assess the effect of the Rhode Island program with respect to evaporators, broadly. In doing so, the EPA has concluded that the Rhode Island program is stricter than any of the Federal requirements with respect to wastewater evaporators. Rhode Island consistently and strictly regulates all generator evaporators by imposing hazardous waste management requirements and comprehensive air emissions regulations, which are administered by the EPA with respect to the requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subparts AA, BB, and CC. This approach is stricter across the board than the Federal approach, and thus should be allowed consistent with the national Equivalency Policy, which emphasizes that States may take different but equally or more protective approaches.
The EPA emphasizes that this decision allows non-permitted evaporation treatment (outside of the WWTU exemption) only in Rhode Island. Such treatment will be allowed only because it has been federally authorized as functionally equivalent, and this Federal authorization is being granted based on the strict requirements adopted by Rhode Island.
(b) Rhode Island requires that in addition to the Federal requirement, treatment in tanks and containers must be carried out in a system where equipment has been designed, engineered, and constructed so as to protect human health and the environment, and to comply with all requirements within OSHA standards.
(c) Rhode Island has adopted additional conditions under which the State regulates shredded circuit boards that are being recycled. At 250-RICR-140-10-1.13 Rhode Island has enacted additional State-specific requirements for Circuit Board Recycling Operations, including additional notification requirements. Typically treated as universal waste in the Federal program, Rhode Island includes these specific items as a type of State-only waste under RCRA. These items may be managed as hazardous waste, thereby making the State requirements broader in scope in this regard and not part of the federally enforceable State hazardous waste requirements.
(d) At 250-RICR-140-10-1.12 Rhode Island's regulations contain Requirements for Community Collection Centers and Paint Collection Centers. The Federal program does not regulate these types of facilities or wastes, so as such and as described with respect to the “broader in scope” policy of EPA, these requirements are being authorized as State-only and broader in scope than the Federal program and are not part of the federally enforceable State hazardous waste requirements. This includes all related State definitions at 250 RICR-140-10-1.5(A) such as “architectural paint” at (A)(5) and “community collection center” at (A)(12).
Finally, there are certain Federal rules within the Rhode Island incorporation by reference of Federal regulations that have been vacated or withdrawn. For completeness, these rule checklists are included below with an explanation as to the rule's status in Rhode Island. These rules are not part of the State's authorized program. These checklists include:
Rhode Island's authorized program continues to be equivalent to and no less stringent than the Federal program without having to make any conforming changes pursuant to these rule checklists, as explained above.
Rhode Island has made amendments to its regulations that are not directly related to any of the Federal rules addressed in Item G.1. above. These State-initiated changes are either conforming changes made to existing authorized provisions, or the adoption of provisions that clarify and make the State's regulations internally consistent. For example, after the 2010 authorization, Rhode Island significantly altered the structure and numbering of the State's hazardous waste regulations, replacing the numbering system and making conforming changes to all necessary internal references, which does not affect the authorization of the State's hazardous waste program. The State's regulations, as amended by these provisions, provide authority which remains equivalent to and no less stringent than the Federal laws and regulations. These State-initiated changes are submitted under the requirements of 40 CFR 271.21(a) and include the following provisions from the Rhode Island Code of Regulations (250-RICR-140-10), as amended effective April 22, 2020: 250-RICR-140-10-1..4(A), 1.4(C), 1.5(A)(5), (A)(12), (A)(20), (A)(30), (A)(44), (A)(45), (A)(73).
When revised State rules differ from the Federal rules in the RCRA State authorization process, the EPA
Rhode Island's hazardous waste program contains certain provisions that are broader than the scope of the Federal program. These broader in scope provisions are not part of the program the EPA is proposing to authorize. The EPA cannot enforce requirements that are broader in scope, although compliance with such provisions is required by State law. Newly added broader in scope provisions in Rhode Island's program include:
(a) At 250-RICR-140-10-1.5(A)(82) the State lists additional State-only hazardous wastes that are beyond the Federal definition of hazardous waste found at 40 CFR 261.3 and known as “Rhode Island Wastes.” These additional wastes include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chemotherapy waste. As part of this authorization the State has added a new subsection at 1.5(A)(82)(a)(3)(DD) to include certain drugs that Rhode Island will classify as “extremely hazardous waste.”
(b) Rhode Island excludes from its incorporation by reference several waste items that are excluded from the Federal definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2, thereby regulating these waste items as State-only hazardous wastes. When substances are regulated as hazardous waste by the State, such as those listed at 250-RICR-140-10-1.4(C)(20) and 1.4(C)(22), the State program is broader in scope than the Federal program.
(c) At 250-RICR-140-10-1.4(C)(23) and 1.4(C)(29) Rhode Island regulates manufactured gas plant waste as hazardous waste in certain circumstances, expanding the universe of hazardous waste regulated by the State.
(d) At 250-RICR-140-10-1.12 Rhode Island regulates a category of State-only facilities, “Community Collection Centers and Paint Collection Centers,” which is broader in scope than the Federal program, including facility specific limitations such as the exclusion for architectural paint received by Paint Care Centers from specific generators as described at 250-RICR-140-10-1.7.6(B)(4).
Rhode Island's hazardous waste program contains several types of provisions that are more stringent than the Federal RCRA program. More stringent provisions are part of a federally authorized program and are therefore federally enforceable. Under this action, the EPA will authorize every provision in Rhode Island's program revision that is more stringent. Provisions identified in the State's program revision as more stringent are noted in Table 1. These provisions are more stringent for the following reasons:
(a) Rhode Island has several requirements applicable to generators of hazardous waste that are more stringent than the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 262.10, including requirements for the management of household hazardous waste and the State's exclusion of the academic lab rule at 250-RICR-140-10-1.7.1(B)-(E), as well as additional requirements for farmers and laboratories.
(b) The State's application of additional storage and transportation requirements, accumulation time limits, exemptions, and recordkeeping such as those found at 250-RICR-140-10.1.7.1 through 1.7.14 including notification, marking, and manifest requirements for CESQGs result in the State program being more stringent than the Federal program.
(c) At 250-RICR-140-10-1.4(D)(1) Rhode Island limits the onsite storage of manifested waste in containers at a transfer facility to 72 hours before additional regulation applies while the Federal program allows this period to extend up to ten (10) days.
(d) At 250-RICR-140-10-1.8 Rhode Island has State-only transport, storage and handling requirements that impose greater restrictions than those found in the Federal requirements at 40 CFR part 263, subparts B and C.
Rhode Island will continue to issue permits covering all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and HSWA permits or portions of permits that the EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization in accordance with the signed Memorandum of Agreement, dated September 30, 2021, which is included with this program revision application. Until such time as formal transfer of the EPA permit responsibility to Rhode Island occurs and the EPA terminates its permit, the EPA and Rhode Island agree to coordinate the administration of permits in order to maintain consistency. The EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in section G after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Rhode Island is not yet authorized.
Rhode Island has not applied for and is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, which includes the land of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. The EPA retains jurisdiction over Indian country and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. The EPA does this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not codifying the authorization of Rhode Island's revisions at this time. However, the EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart OO, for the authorization of Rhode Island's program at a later date.
Past Rhode Island authorization
There was an error in the citation for Revision Checklist 2 in “Table 1—Provisions Covered by this Program
The following items were inadvertently omitted from “Table 1—Provisions Covered by this Program Authorization Revision” and should be added to the end of the Table.
1. HSWA Codification Rule: Double Liners (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985) (Revision Checklist 17H).
2. HSWA Codification Rule: Ground-water Monitoring (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985) (Revision Checklist 17I).
3. HSWA Codification Rule: Interim Status (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985) (Revision Checklist 17P).
4. HSWA Codification Rule: Research and Development Permits (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985) (Revision Checklist 17Q).
The following items were inadvertently omitted from “Table 1—Provisions Covered by this Program Authorization Revision” and should be added to the end of the Table.
1. Biennial Report Correction (51 FR 28556, August 8, 1986) (Revision Checklist 30).
2. Closure/Post-closure Care for Interim Status Surface Impoundments (52 FR 8704, March 19, 1987) (Revision Checklist 36).
3. Amendments to Part B Information Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities (52 FR 23447, June 22, 1987, as amended September 9, 1987, at 52 FR 33936) (Revision Checklist 38).
The following items were inadvertently omitted from the table of provisions included as part of the authorization and should be added to the end of the Table.
1. Permit Modification for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (53 FR 37912, September 28, 1988, as amended October 24, 1988, at 53 FR 41649) (Revision Checklist 54).
2. Statistical Methods for Evaluating Groundwater Monitoring Data from Hazardous Waste Facilities (53 FR 39720, October 11, 1988) (Revision Checklist 55).
3. Changes to Interim Status Facilities for Hazardous Waste Management Permits; Modification of Hazardous Waste Management Permits; Procedures for Post-Closure Permitting (54 FR 9596, March 7, 1989) (Revision Checklist 61).
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA section 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in taking this action, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive order. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correcting amendments.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective September 4, 2024.
Nicholas Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
The FCC is correcting the Table of Allocations in 47 CFR 2.106. A rule the FCC published August 5, 2024, at 89 FR 63296 contained errors in the table formatting.
Accordingly, in FR Rule Doc. No. 2024-16638, appearing on page 63296 in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective and compliance dates.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, a revision to an information collection associated with the rules for the Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 23-96 (Safe Connections Act Order). This document is consistent with the Safe Connections Act Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
Nicholas Page, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or via email:
The Commission submitted new information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on June 10, 2024, which were approved by the OMB on August 7, 2024. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's Safe Connections Act Order (FCC 23-96, rel. Nov. 16, 2023), published at 88 FR 84406, on December 5, 2023. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0819. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules that required PRA approval. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-0819. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0819, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on August 7, 2024, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.403, 54.405, 54.409, 54.410, 54.424, and 54.1800, which revises §§ 54.403(a)(5), 54.405(e)(7), 54.409(a)(4), 54.410(j), 54.424(c), and 54.1800(j)(7).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0819.
The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The revisions to this collection reflect the notice and reporting requirements adopted by the Commission in the SCA Order.
Communications, Communications common carriers, Privacy, Telecommunications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, 1601-1609, and 1752, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
Under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act), NMFS issues this final rule to shorten the duration of fish aggregating device (FAD) closure periods for the U.S. purse seine fishery. This action is necessary to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention), to which it is a Contracting Party.
This rule is effective August 29, 2024.
Copies of supporting documents prepared for this final rule, including the regulatory impact review (RIR), as well as the proposed rule (89 FR 46352, May 29, 2024), are available via the Federal e-rulemaking Portal, at
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) prepared under authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the “Classification” section in
Rini Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5033.
On May 29, 2024, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
This final rule is issued under the authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
This final rule implements specific provisions of a recent WCPFC decision (Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2023-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean”). The preamble to the proposed rule provides background information on the Convention and the Commission, the provisions that are being implemented in this rule, and the basis for the regulations, which is not repeated here.
The specific elements of the final rule are detailed below.
In accordance with CMM 2023-01, the final rule shortens the duration of the FAD prohibition period to extend from July 1 through August 15 (instead of from July 1 through September 30, as previously required) during each calendar year in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20° N and 20° S (inclusive of the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and high seas in the Convention Area and excluding the area of overlap between the WCPFC and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)). Regarding the additional one-month FAD prohibition period on the high seas in the Convention Area, the final rule implements the high seas FAD prohibition period in December in 2024 and during each calendar year thereafter.
As currently defined in 50 CFR 300.211, a FAD is “any artificial or natural floating object, whether anchored or not and whether situated at the water surface or not, that is capable of aggregating fish, as well as any object used for that purpose that is situated on board a vessel or otherwise out of the water. The definition of FAD does not include a vessel.” Under this final rule, the regulatory definition of a FAD will not change. Although the definition of a FAD does not include a vessel, the restrictions during the FAD prohibition periods include certain activities related to fish that have aggregated in association with a vessel, or drawn by a vessel, as described below.
The prohibitions applicable to these FAD-related measures are in existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.223(b)(1)(i)-
(1) Set a purse seine around a FAD or within 1 nautical mile (1,852 meters) of a FAD;
(2) Set a purse seine in a manner intended to capture fish that have aggregated in association with a FAD or a vessel, such as by setting the purse seine in an area from which a FAD or a vessel has been moved or removed within the previous 8 hours, setting the purse seine in an area in which a FAD has been inspected or handled within the previous 8 hours, or setting the purse seine in an area into which fish were drawn by a vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a vessel;
(3) Deploy a FAD into the water;
(4) Repair, clean, maintain, or otherwise service a FAD, including any electronic equipment used in association with a FAD, in the water or on a vessel while at sea, except that: a FAD may be inspected and handled as needed to identify the FAD, identify and release incidentally captured animals, un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage to property or risk to human safety; and a FAD may be removed from the water and if removed may be cleaned, provided that it is not returned to the water; or
(5) From a purse seine vessel or any associated skiffs, other watercraft or equipment, submerge lights under water, suspend or hang lights over the side of the purse seine vessel, skiff, watercraft or equipment, or direct or use lights in a manner other than as needed to illuminate the deck of the purse seine vessel or associated skiffs, watercraft or equipment, to comply with navigational requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of the crew.
These prohibitions do not apply during emergencies as needed to prevent human injury or the loss of human life, the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs, watercraft or aircraft, or environmental damage.
The final rule also makes a technical correction regarding the area of application in 50 CFR 300.223(b)(3)(i) to explicitly state that the requirements regarding activating FADs apply in the Convention Area. The current regulatory text does not include the specific area of application.
NMFS received one comment letter on the proposed rule. The American Tunaboat Association (ATA), which represents owners and operators of U.S. purse seine fishing vessels, expressed strong support for the proposed rule. ATA also noted that though it currently prefers that the high seas FAD closure occur in December in 2024, it is possible that the fleet's preference could change in the future. In addition, ATA noted that the Commission's decision in CMM 2023-01 to reduce the FAD closures was precautionary in reducing the existing FAD closures by one-half. According to ATA, during the discussion at the Commission meeting, there was a strong argument that the FAD closures could be eliminated in their entirety without jeopardizing the health of the marine resources in question.
NMFS acknowledges the comment from ATA and the information provided. NMFS is finalizing the high seas closure in December for 2024 and each subsequent year, as proposed. NMFS is implementing the Commission's decision as specified in CMM 2023-01 to fulfill the obligations of the United States under the Convention and has considered available biological and scientific information.
There are no changes to the proposed rule in this final rule.
The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this action is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws.
Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this final rule will become effective immediately upon publication because it is a substantive rule which relieves a regulatory restriction (
NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of American Samoa, the CNMI, Guam, and the State of Hawaii. Determinations to Hawaii and each of the Territories were submitted on March 8, 2024, for review by the responsible state and territorial agencies under section 307 of the CZMA. The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program responded on March 12, 2024, stating that because the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery operates outside the jurisdiction of its enforceable policies, it would not be reviewing the consistency determination. Guam requested supplemental information that NMFS provided on March 28, 2024. The CNMI replied by letter dated May 7, 2024, stating that it concurs that the action is consistent with the enforceable policies of CNMI's coastal management program. Guam replied by letter dated May 28, 2024, stating that based on the information provided, it concurs that the action will be consistent with the enforceable policies of Guam's Coastal Management Program. No response was received from American Samoa, and thus, concurrence with the respective consistency determinations is presumed (15 CFR 930.41).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A FRFA was prepared, as required by section 604 of the RFA. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule. The analysis in the IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the
NMFS did not receive any comments specifically on the IRFA or on the economic impacts of the rule more generally.
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 final rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. commercial purse seine fishing vessels used to fish for highly migratory species in the
Based on limited financial information about the affected fishing fleets, and using individual vessels as proxies for individual businesses, NMFS believes 62 percent of the vessels in the purse seine fleet are small entities as defined by the RFA (
The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of this final rule are described earlier in the “Action” sub-section of the
The FAD restrictions being implemented under the final rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The new requirement would be for affected vessel owners and operators to comply with the FAD restrictions described earlier in the
Fulfillment of the element's requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are described below to the extent possible.
The FAD restrictions would substantially constrain the manner in which purse seine fishing could be conducted in the specified areas and periods in the Convention Area compared to the no-action alternative of no closure periods in place at all; in those areas and during those periods, vessels would be able to set only on free, or “unassociated,” schools.
With respect to the one and a half month FAD closure throughout the Convention Area, assuming that sets would be evenly distributed through the year, the number of annual FAD sets would be expected to be about 87.5 percent of the number that would occur without a seasonal FAD closure, and 12.5 percent more than during the existing 3-month FAD closure. This is calculated by assuming FAD setting would occur at the same rate throughout the year and that a one and half month closure would lead to FAD setting for 10.5 out of 12 months of the year instead of for the full 12 months (
With respect to the additional 1-month high seas FAD closure, the effects of this element are difficult to predict. CMM 2023-01 includes four options for the 1-month high seas FAD closure: April, May, November, or December. In 2018, NMFS analyzed the impacts of the two previous options included in earlier CMMs, which were the 2-month high seas FAD closure in April and May and the 2-month high seas FAD closure in November and December, using data from 2014-2017, and did not find any statistically significant differences between the average number of sets in high seas areas, or the number of FAD associated sets in the high seas across months. The earlier CMMs only included those two options for 2-month high seas FAD closures and did not include the four options for 1-month high seas FAD closures included in CMM 2023-01. However, NMFS did observe trends in the number of high seas and the number of FAD sets in the high seas areas that supported selection of the November-December FAD prohibition period. In particular, the number of FAD sets in the high seas areas were low during November and December due to fishing effort limits met prior to the end of the season. If the effort limit was reached prior to November, then the later prohibition period would have a lesser adverse direct economic impact on the U.S. purse seine fleet. The analysis also noted that unpredictable future conditions such as ex-vessel price and environmental conditions—could result in either closure period having a greater adverse direct economic impact on the fleet. In 2018-2023, NMFS chose to implement the 2-month high seas FAD closure in November-December, and in 2018, the high seas was closed from September 19-December 31, and in 2019, the U.S. EEZ and the high seas were closed from October 9-November 28 and from December 9-31. Thus, in 2018 and for most of 2019, the 2-month high seas FAD closure had little to no additional impacts due to the closures from the fishing effort limits already being reached. Similarly, for 2024-2026, if the high seas are closed to all purse seine fishing towards the end of the year as a result of the fishing effort limit being reached, the high seas FAD closure during either November or December would have no additional effect whatsoever. In that situation, given that any closure would likely occur later in the year, implementing the 1-month closure in December would be likely to have less effect than implementing the 1-month closure in November. However, if the high seas are not closed to fishing during the closure period, given the performance of the fleet in recent years, the prohibition on FAD setting would make the high seas less favorable for fishing than they otherwise would be, since only unassociated sets would be allowed there, but it is not possible to characterize how influential that factor would be. Thus, it is not possible to predict the effects in terms of the spatial distribution of fishing effort or the proportion of fishing effort that is made on FADs.
With respect to both the one and a half month FAD closure and 1-month additional high seas FAD closure compared to the no-action alternative of no FAD closures in place at all, as for the limits on fishing effort, vessel operators might choose to schedule their routine maintenance periods so as to take best advantage of the available opportunities for making FAD sets (
Vessels in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet make both unassociated sets and FAD sets when not constrained by regulation, so one type of set is not always more valuable or efficient than the other. Which set type is optimal at any given time is a function of immediate conditions in and on the water. Other factors, such as fuel prices
Compared to the second no-action alternative or status quo alternative of FAD prohibition periods that would be twice as long as the FAD prohibition periods that would be implemented under the final rule, any adverse effects would be proportionally reduced. Thus the adverse effects in terms of costs and revenue losses would be less under the final rule than under the status quo no-action alternative.
In the purse seine fishing sector, approximately 62 percent of the affected entities are small entities, so disproportionate impacts would not be expected. The direct effect of the final rule would be to constrain fishing effort, as compared to the no-action alternative of no closure periods in place at all, by purse seine fishing vessels, with consequent constraining effects on both revenues (because catches would be less) and operating costs (because less fishing would be undertaken). Although some purse seine fishing entities are larger than others, NMFS is not aware of any differences between the small entities and the large entities (as defined by the RFA) in terms of their capital costs, operating costs, or other aspects of their businesses. Accordingly, there is no information to suggest that the direct adverse economic impacts on small purse seine entities would be disproportionately greater than those on large purse seine entities. However, the direct effect of the final rule would be to reduce constraints on fishing effort, as compare to the status quo no-action alternative, by purse seine fishing vessels.
NMFS has not identified any Federal regulations that duplicate, overlap with, or conflict with the regulations.
NMFS has sought to identify alternatives that would minimize the final rule's economic impacts on small entities (
NMFS considered in detail the timing of the additional 1-month FAD closure for the high seas. CMM 2023-01 allows members to choose either April, May, November, or December, as the additional month for the high seas FAD closure. NMFS has compared the expected direct economic impacts of these four options (implementing a high seas FAD closure in April, May, November, or December) on purse seine fishing businesses in the RIR prepared at the proposed rule stage, by analyzing two discrete alternatives. Due to the similarities between implementing the high seas FAD closure in April or May (a spring closure) or in November or December (a winter closure), the RIR analyzed the impacts of implementing the closure in April or May as compared to November or December. The analysis finds a closure later in the year—a December closure—is more likely to have a lesser direct economic impact on those businesses for the following reasons: because the later closure period is more likely to run concurrently with a closure of the high seas in the Convention Area to purse seine fishing (if the fishing effort limits are reached), in which case the FAD closure would bring no additional economic impacts.
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. NMFS has prepared a small entity compliance guide for this rule, and will send copies of the guide to U.S. purse seine vessel permit holders. The guide and this final rule also will be available via the Federal e-rulemaking Portal, at
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 300 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 6901
(b) * * *
(2) The requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall apply:
(i) From July 1 through August 15, in each calendar year;
(ii) In any area of high seas, from December 1 through December 31, in each calendar year.
(3)(i)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2024 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of Rhode Island. This adjustment to the 2024 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2024 commercial quotas for North Carolina and Rhode Island.
Effective August 28, 2024 through December 31, 2024.
Caroline Potter, Fishery Resource Management Specialist, (978) 281-9325.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2024 allocations were published on December 21, 2023 (88 FR 88266).
The final rule implementing amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 12,120 pounds (lb; 5,498 kilograms (kg)) to Rhode Island through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2024 are: North Carolina, 2,341,075 lb (1,061,894 kg); and Rhode Island, 1,394,426 lb (632,501 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements final small-mesh multispecies specifications for the 2024 fishing year, and projected specifications for fishing years 2025 and 2026. This action is necessary to establish allowable harvest levels and other management measures consistent with the most recent scientific information. This rule informs the public of these final fishery specifications for the 2024 fishing year.
Effective September 30, 2024.
The New England Fishery Management Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for these specifications that describes the action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides: an analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the preferred measures and other considered alternatives; a Regulatory Impact Review; and an economic analysis. Copies of these specifications, including the EA, Regulatory Flexibility Act Analyses, and other supporting documents for the action are available upon request from Dr. Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also accessible via the internet at:
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 282-8456.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) manages the small-mesh multispecies fishery within the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The small-mesh multispecies fishery is made up of three species of hakes that are
This action implements catch limit specifications for the 2024 small-mesh multispecies fishery and announces final specifications for fishing years 2025 and 2026 based primarily on the Council's recommendations. This rule implements the Council's recommended catch limits for northern silver hake, southern whiting, and northern red hake. Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), this rule implements an ABC for southern red hake that is 25 percent lower than the Council's recommendation in order to comply with the requirements established in Framework Adjustment 62 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (87 FR 3694, January 25, 2022).
Framework 62 established a rebuilding plan for southern red hake that requires the ABC be set to 75 percent of the fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield (F
This action implements the 2024 and provides the projected 2025-2026 small-mesh multispecies catch specifications, based largely on the Council's recommendations, with the southern red hake specifications adjusted as required by the rebuilding plan. The final catch limits increase annual quotas for northern silver hake and decrease the quota for southern whiting and both red hake stocks (table 1). Specifications for fishing years 2025 and 2026 are projected to be the same as the 2024 limits. These specifications are based on the most recent assessment update using the best scientific information available.
The Council did not recommend changes to any other regulations for the small-mesh multispecies fishery. Therefore, all other fishery management measures remain unchanged under the final action. The Council will review the projected 2025 and 2026 specifications to determine if any changes need to be made prior to their final implementation. Changes may occur if quota overages trigger accountability measures, or if new stock information results in changes to the ABC recommendations. We will publish a notice prior to the 2025 fishing year to confirm the specifications or announce any necessary changes.
The proposed rule for this action was published in the
There was one change from the proposed rule addressing the TAL for northern red hake. We inadvertently listed the TAL as 213 metric tons (mt)
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that these final specifications are necessary for the conservation and management of the small-mesh multispecies fishery, and that they are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.
This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
This action contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the Central Aleutian and Western Aleutian districts (CAI/WAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2024 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish total allowable catch (TAC) in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 26, 2024, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2024.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subparts H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2024 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish TAC in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI is 181 metric tons as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024). The Administrator for the Alaska Region of NMFS has determined that the 2024 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish TAC in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), NMFS is requiring that blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI be treated in the same manner as a prohibited species, as described under § 679.21(a), for the remainder of the year, except blackspotted and rougheye rockfish species in the CAI/WAI caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear as described in § 679.20(j).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the prohibited retention of blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 23, 2024.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a proposed rule and requesting comments on the housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) for 2025 through 2027 as required by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. The housing goals and subgoals include separate categories for single-family and multifamily mortgages on housing affordable to low-income and very low-income families, among others. The proposed rule also includes criteria for when housing plans would be required for 2025-2027, and it makes several technical changes to enhance clarity and conform the regulation to existing practice.
FHFA will accept written comments on the proposed rule on or before October 28, 2024.
You may submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AB34, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. Comments will be posted to the electronic rulemaking docket on the FHFA public website at
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) requires FHFA to establish several annual housing goals for both single-family and multifamily mortgages purchased by the Enterprises.
Since 2010, FHFA has established annual housing goals for Enterprise purchases of single-family and multifamily mortgages consistent with the requirements of the Safety and Soundness Act. The structure of the housing goals and the parameters for determining how mortgage purchases are counted or not counted are defined in the housing goals regulation.
Under the Safety and Soundness Act, the single-family housing goals are limited to mortgages on owner-occupied housing with one to four units. The single-family goals cover first lien, conventional, conforming mortgages, meaning mortgages that are not subordinate to other mortgage liens, that are not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration or another government agency, and that have principal balances that do not exceed the conforming loan limits for Enterprise mortgages.
While the retrospective market levels measure mortgage originations in a particular year, the performance of the Enterprises on the housing goals includes all Enterprise purchases in that year, regardless of the year in which the loan was originated. This includes any loans that are originated in one year and purchased by an Enterprise in a later year.
The Safety and Soundness Act requires that affordability for rental units under the multifamily housing goals be determined based on rents that “[do] not exceed 30 percent of the maximum income level of such income category, with appropriate adjustments for unit size as measured by the number of bedrooms.”
If, after publication of the final rule establishing the Enterprise housing goals for 2025-2027, new information indicates that any of the single-family or multifamily housing goals are not feasible in light of market conditions or the safety and soundness of the Enterprises, or for any other reason, FHFA may take any steps that are necessary and appropriate to respond, consistent with the Safety and Soundness Act and the Enterprise housing goals regulation.
For example, under the Safety and Soundness Act and the Enterprise housing goals regulation, FHFA is permitted to reduce the benchmark levels in response to an Enterprise petition for reduction for any of the single-family or multifamily housing goals in a particular year based on a determination by FHFA that: (1) market and economic conditions or the financial condition of the Enterprise require a reduction; or (2) efforts to meet the goal or subgoal would result in the constraint of liquidity, over-investment in certain market segments, or other consequences contrary to the intent of the Safety and Soundness Act or the purposes of the Enterprises' charter acts.
The Safety and Soundness Act and the Enterprise housing goals regulation also consider the possibility that achievement of a particular housing goal may or may not have been feasible for an Enterprise. If FHFA determines that a housing goal was not feasible for an Enterprise to achieve, then the statute and regulation provide for no further enforcement of that housing goal for that year.
If FHFA determines that an Enterprise did not meet a housing goal and that achievement of the housing goal was feasible, then the statute and regulation provide FHFA with discretionary authority to require the Enterprise to submit a housing plan describing the specific actions the Enterprise will take to improve its housing goals performance.
FHFA is proposing in § 1282.22 new criteria that would apply in assessing whether a housing plan would be required for certain single-family housing goals during the 2025-2027 housing goals period. The purpose of these “Enforcement Factors,” discussed below, is to encourage the Enterprises to focus on meeting the market levels rather than focusing exclusively on the housing goals benchmark levels in the event of unexpected disruptions to the market that occur after publication of the final rule.
On September 6, 2008, FHFA placed each Enterprise into conservatorship. Although the Enterprises remain in conservatorship, they continue to have the mission of supporting a stable and liquid national market for residential mortgage financing. FHFA has continued to establish annual housing goals for the Enterprises and to assess their performance under the housing goals each year during conservatorship.
This proposed rule would establish the benchmark levels for the single-family housing goals for 2025-2027 as follows:
The low-income areas housing goal benchmark level is not included in this proposed rule. Under the existing regulation, the benchmark level will be the sum of the benchmark levels for the minority census tracts subgoal and the low-income census tracts subgoal established above, plus an additional amount that will be determined separately by FHFA by notice that takes into account families in disaster areas with incomes no greater than 100 percent of AMI.
The proposed rule would establish the benchmark levels for the multifamily housing goals and subgoal for 2025-2027 as follows:
This proposed rule also would revise the current regulation to refer to the multifamily very low-income housing benchmark level as a housing goal, instead of referring to it as a subgoal. The Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA to establish additional requirements for units affordable to very low-income families when it establishes the goal for mortgages on multifamily properties that finance dwelling units affordable to low-income families.
FHFA is proposing new criteria for the 2025-2027 housing goals period that clarify when housing plans would be required. Section 1282.22 would establish Enforcement Factors that FHFA will apply in determining whether to require a housing plan if an Enterprise fails to meet certain single-family housing goals in 2025 through 2027. FHFA expects that this proposal will provide guidance to the Enterprises should the market for the single-family low-income home purchase, very low-income home purchase, or low-income refinance segment turn out to be significantly lower than what is forecasted in this rule. FHFA is seeking public comment on all aspects of these Enforcement Factors.
FHFA is proposing this change because the mortgage market has experienced unexpected challenges that continue to produce uncertainty. Interest rates increased in 2022 and 2023, home prices remained elevated, and housing supply remained constricted, resulting in low mortgage loan volumes. Lender competition for the smaller number of loans escalated, and the Enterprises struggled to manage their acquisition mix to meet the benchmark levels for the low-income home purchase and very low-income home purchase housing goals. The 2022-2024 housing goals, which were designed to be ambitious in the rule that was finalized in 2021, were set in advance of these recent, unexpected market changes.
There remains a great deal of uncertainty with respect to the overall volume and composition of the mortgage market in 2025-2027. FHFA is proposing Enforcement Factors that would be considered when determining whether an Enterprise would be required to submit a housing plan if it fails to meet certain single-family housing goals in 2025-2027. FHFA expects that this will allow the Enterprises to focus on meeting or exceeding the expected market level as opposed to the benchmark level in the event that market levels are significantly below the benchmark level established in the regulation. Additionally, the Enforcement Factors should encourage the Enterprises to focus on estimating and forecasting the market levels for the different housing goals. Specifically, FHFA is proposing that for 2025-2027, if the benchmark level for a single-family housing goal is higher than the market level for the goal, an Enterprise that fails to meet the goal will not be required to submit a housing plan if the Enterprise's performance meets or exceeds: (i) the market level minus 1.3 percentage points for the low-income home purchase goal; (ii) the market level minus 0.5 percentage points for the very low-income home purchase goal; or (iii) the market level minus 1.3 percentage points for the low-income refinance goal. To ensure that an Enterprise does not rely entirely on these Enforcement Factors, if an Enterprise fails to meet one of the applicable goals in both 2025 and 2026, the Enforcement Factor would not apply to that goal in 2027.
The proposed rule would make minor technical changes intended to better conform the regulation to statutory text and existing FHFA practices and procedures, as further discussed below. FHFA welcomes comments on these technical changes and any other technical changes or corrections that are necessary. FHFA may include additional technical changes or corrections in the final rule based on comments received.
The proposed rule would amend the definition of “designated disaster area” to reflect that major disasters are designated (declared) by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
The proposed rule also would make technical changes to consistently reference goals and subgoals. For example, in the current regulation, § 1282.11(a)(1) refers to the various housing goals, including one single-family subgoal, one multifamily special affordable housing goal, and two multifamily special affordable housing subgoals. The proposed rule would modify that paragraph to reference the two single-family, owner-occupied, purchase money mortgage housing subgoals. The proposed rule also would modify that paragraph to remove the words “special affordable” in each
In addition, the proposed rule would make other, non-substantive changes to the enforcement provisions located at §§ 1282.20 and 1282.21 of the current Enterprise housing goals regulation. Section 1282.20 currently addresses both preliminary and final determinations of housing goals compliance and would be divided into two distinct sections: § 1282.20 would address preliminary determinations of housing goals compliance; and § 1282.21 would address final determinations of housing goals compliance. As proposed, these sections would include revised wording that conforms to FHFA's established practices.
Current § 1282.21 addresses housing plans and would accordingly be redesignated as § 1282.22 and amended to include the proposed Enforcement Factors provisions described above in paragraph (b). The provisions in current § 1282.21(b) through (e) would be relocated to proposed § 1282.22(c) through (f). Paragraph (f) would include technical changes to clarify that if a proposed amended housing plan is not acceptable to the Director, the Director may afford the Enterprise 15 days to submit additional amendments to its proposed plan for approval or disapproval, rather than requiring a “new” proposed plan.
Finally, the proposed rule would include a new provision at § 1282.22(g) that incorporates the housing plan enforcement provisions contained in the Safety and Soundness Act. This would provide that if the Director requires an Enterprise to submit a housing plan and the Enterprise refuses to submit such a plan, submits an unacceptable plan, or fails to comply with the plan, the Director may issue a cease and desist order in accordance with 12 U.S.C. 4581, impose civil money penalties in accordance with 12 U.S.C. 4585, or take any other action that the Director determines to be appropriate. While FHFA has authority to enforce the housing plans under the statutory authority in the Safety and Soundness Act whether or not these specific references are incorporated into the Enterprise housing goals regulation, incorporating the enforcement provisions would provide a more complete description of FHFA's enforcement authority. This would support the goal of transparency and make it easier for anyone unfamiliar with the Safety and Soundness Act to understand the potential consequences if an Enterprise fails to submit an acceptable housing plan or fails to comply with the plan as required.
The Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA to consider the following seven factors in setting the single-family housing goals:
1. National housing needs;
2. Economic, housing, and demographic conditions, including expected market developments;
3. The performance and effort of the Enterprises toward achieving the housing goals in previous years;
4. The ability of the Enterprises to lead the industry in making mortgage credit available;
5. Such other reliable mortgage data as may be available;
6. The size of the purchase money conventional mortgage market, or refinance conventional mortgage market, as applicable, serving each of the types of families described, relative to the size of the overall purchase money mortgage market or the overall refinance mortgage market, respectively; and
7. The need to maintain the sound financial condition of the Enterprises.
FHFA has considered each of these seven statutory factors in setting the proposed benchmark levels for each of the single-family housing goals and subgoals.
In setting the proposed benchmark levels for the single-family housing goals, FHFA typically relies on statistical market models developed by FHFA to evaluate many of these statutory factors, including national housing needs, the size of the market, and expected market developments. These market models generate a point forecast for each goal as well as a confidence interval for the point forecast. FHFA then considers other statutory factors, including the need to maintain the sound financial condition of the Enterprises, in proposing a specific benchmark level.
FHFA has employed similar models in past Enterprise housing goals rulemaking cycles to generate market forecasts. The models are developed using monthly series generated from HMDA and other data sources, and the resulting monthly forecasts are then averaged into an annual forecast for each of the three years in the goal period. The models rely on 19 years of HMDA data, from 2004 to 2022, the latest year for which public HMDA data was available at the time of model construction. FHFA will update the models with HMDA data for 2023 when developing the final rule. Additional discussion of the market forecast models can be found in a research paper, available at
Interest rates are important determinants of the trajectory of financial markets, including the mortgage market. As Moody's notes in its February 2024 forecasts, the Federal Reserve has signaled that it may be at the end of its current tightening cycle. At its January 2024 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) further signaled that it would consider rate cuts once inflation is moving sustainably towards the Federal Reserve's 2.0 percent inflation target. Moody's baseline scenario in February 2024 assumed that this will occur in mid-2024 and expected a 25 basis point cut in May, June, July, and December 2024. After that, Moody's baseline scenario expects that further rate cuts will be spread out over a longer period so that the Federal Funds rate for 2025, 2026, and 2027 will be 4.0 percent, 3.2 percent, and 2.9 percent, respectively. Thus, Moody's assumes that the FOMC will adjust monetary policy slowly as inflation eases slowly. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which stood at 4.1 percent for 2023, is projected to be 2.7 percent in 2024, and is projected to decline to 2.2 percent by 2027. The unemployment rate is expected to gradually rise to 4.0 percent by the end of 2024, before peaking just above that in mid-2025. It is forecast to be 4.1 percent for 2025, before declining to 4.0 percent for 2026 and 2027.
Home prices increased rapidly in 2021 and 2022 as indicated by FHFA's purchase-only House Price Index (HPI), due to a combination of high demand for housing resulting from demographic trends and limited supply of homes for sale.
The rise in the effective Federal Funds rate from 0.08 percent in January 2022 to 5.33 percent in July 2023 contributed to rapid increases in mortgage rates: for instance, the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage rate increased from 3.1 percent to 6.6 percent over the same period.
Taken together, the elevated mortgage interest rates and high home price levels likely will continue to impact the ability of low- and very low-income households to purchase homes. The median home price to median household income ratio, which is often used to measure affordability, rose to 5.6 in 2022, the highest point since the early 1970s. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the rise of home prices has been rapid in all parts of the country and especially so in metro areas. For example, in 2022, among the 100 largest metro areas in the county, 48 metro areas had home price to income ratios exceeding 5, compared to 2019 where only 15 markets had ratios above 5.
The supply of affordable housing has not kept pace with the growth of demand.
The combination of high home prices and elevated mortgage rates along with continued limited housing supply has also contributed to a sharp decline in purchase loan origination volumes, as new homes are less affordable and existing homeowners are less likely to give up their low interest rate mortgage. For example, in 2022 lenders reported a 51 percent decrease in closed-end site-built single-family mortgage originations from 2021 volumes.
Furthermore, Moody's notes that, “Life events such as divorces, deaths, and the birth of children along with moderating interest rates will prompt more homeowners to list their homes in 2024 than in 2023, but the rise in existing home sales is expected to be limited.”
FHFA continues to monitor how these changes in the housing market, as well as other market conditions, may impact various segments of the market, including those targeted by the housing goals.
As shown in Graph 1, the Enterprises' share of the conforming mortgage market returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2022 and rose slightly in 2023. Over the same period, the total Government share of the mortgage market (including the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Rural Housing Service) and the Other share (such as retained bank portfolios) expanded.
FHFA is proposing to establish the following benchmark levels for the single-family housing goals and subgoals for 2025-2027.
The low-income home purchase goal is based on the percentage share of all single-family, owner-occupied home purchase mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are made to low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI.
Between 2020 and 2023, the low-income purchase market level, as measured by HMDA data, declined from 27.6 percent to 26.3 percent. FHFA's current model forecasts that the annual market average over 2025-2027 will be 26.6 percent. As noted previously and in the accompanying market model paper, this forecast is based on the 2022 HMDA data and Moody's forecasts as of February 2024. As of July 2024, the interest rate cuts in the Moody's forecast have not materialized. FHFA will update this and the other forecast models before the release of the final housing goals rule.
FHFA's 2022-2024 housing goals final rule established a benchmark of 28 percent for the low-income home purchase goal to serve as a “stretch goal” to encourage the Enterprises to continue their efforts to promote safe and sustainable lending to low-income families. However, during that period, larger than expected increases in mortgage rates and home prices, and the continued shortfall in affordable housing supply, have disproportionately impacted lower-income borrowers' mortgage eligibility and lowered the number of low-income loans in the market to well below the Agency's initial expectations. Those factors, which are outside the Enterprises' control, continue in the market today along with great uncertainty about when conditions will change. Further, by statute, in setting new goals FHFA considers the Enterprises' past efforts to meet the housing goals as well as the impact of those efforts on the Enterprises' financial condition. During 2023, FHFA observed that many competing actions taken by the Enterprises designed to help them meet the stretch benchmark (which exceeded the level of low-income loans being produced in the market) did not benefit low-income borrowers, risked constraining liquidity in the overall market, and potentially impacted the Enterprises' financial condition.
Considering current and foreseeable market conditions, FHFA is proposing a benchmark level for the low-income home purchase goal of 25 percent. This proposed benchmark level is below the benchmark level for 2022-2024, but above the 24 percent benchmark level that was in place from 2015 through 2021. FHFA expects this proposed benchmark level to encourage the Enterprises to continue to find ways to support low-income borrowers without compromising safe and sound lending standards during a period of affordability challenges and increased uncertainty around market conditions.
The very low-income home purchase goal is based on the percentage share of all single-family, owner-occupied home purchase mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are for very low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 50 percent of AMI.
Between 2020 and 2023, the very low-income purchase market level, as measured using HMDA data, declined from 7.0 percent to 6.5 percent. FHFA's current model forecasts that the market for this goal will remain around 6.6-6.7 percent for 2025-2027. This forecast is based on the 2022 HMDA data and Moody's forecasts as of February 2024 and will be updated before the release of the final housing goals rule.
Like the low-income home purchase goal, FHFA's 2022-2024 housing goals final rule established a “stretch” benchmark of 7 percent for the very low-income home purchase goal, also designed to encourage the Enterprises to continue to promote safe and sustainable lending to very low-income families. However, the same adverse market conditions described in the previous section have also disproportionately impacted very low-income borrowers' mortgage eligibility, reducing the number of very low-income loans in the market to well below FHFA's earlier expectations. During 2023, the Enterprises deployed the same actions described above in their efforts to reach the very low-income benchmark, and those actions also failed to benefit very low-income borrowers, risked constraining liquidity in the overall market, and potentially impacted the Enterprises' financial condition. Those market conditions continue today along with great uncertainty about when conditions will change. Therefore, FHFA is proposing a benchmark level for the very low-income home purchase goal of 6 percent. FHFA expects this proposed benchmark will encourage the Enterprises to continue to find ways to support low-income borrowers without compromising safe and sound lending standards during a period of affordability challenges and increased uncertainty around market conditions.
The minority census tracts subgoal is based on the percentage share of home purchase mortgages on single-family, owner-occupied properties to borrowers with incomes no greater than 100 percent of AMI in minority census tracts. The Safety and Soundness Act defines minority census tracts as those with a minority population of 30 percent or more and median census tract income of less than 100 percent of AMI. The proposed rule would raise the annual benchmark level for this subgoal for 2025-2027 to 12 percent from its previous level of 10 percent.
FHFA's 2022-2024 housing goals final rule established the minority census tracts home purchase subgoal as a new subgoal within the broader low-income areas goal to encourage the Enterprises to fulfill their statutory duty to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for all low- and moderate-income families, including families of color. The final rule forecast for the new subgoal averaged 8.9 percent over the 2022-2024 period, and the final rule set the annual minority census tracts subgoal benchmark for each of those years at 10 percent to ensure Enterprises focus on the needs of communities of color. The preamble also emphasized that FHFA would carefully monitor the performance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on this new subgoal.
Table 4 shows the implied market levels and Enterprise performance in 2020 and 2021 (before FHFA established the subgoal) as well as market levels and Enterprise performance since the subgoal was established. Both Enterprises exceeded the benchmark and market levels for this subgoal in 2022, the year this subgoal was introduced. Based on preliminary data, both Enterprises exceeded the benchmark level for this subgoal in 2023. The table also shows a pronounced increase in the market levels and both Enterprises' performance on this subgoal beginning in 2022. FHFA notes that 2022 was the first year of new census tract boundaries based on the 2020 Census, which could have contributed to the change. The Agency is continuing to analyze the issue and plans to publish more information in the final rule.
FHFA's current model forecasts the market for this subgoal will remain around 12.3-12.4 percent for 2025-2027. This forecast is based on the 2022 HMDA data and Moody's forecasts as of February 2024, and will be updated before the release of the final housing goals rule. FHFA is proposing to increase the benchmark for this subgoal from 10 percent to 12 percent, which is slightly lower than the midpoint of the market forecast. FHFA believes that this level emphasizes the importance of providing access to mortgage credit for borrowers who reside or seek to reside in minority census tracts.
The low-income census tracts home purchase subgoal is based on the percentage share of home purchase
Table 5 shows the implied market levels and Enterprise performance in 2020 and 2021, along with market levels and Enterprise performance since the subgoal has been established. As shown above, both Enterprises exceeded the benchmark level for this subgoal in 2022, the first year of this subgoal. Based on preliminary data, both Enterprises also exceeded the benchmark level in 2023.
Prior to 2022, the subgoal structure included both low-income census tracts and minority census tracts in a single subgoal. As FHFA noted in the preamble to the 2022-2024 housing goals proposed rule, the performance of the Enterprises on that subgoal was heavily influenced by Enterprise purchases of loans for higher income families (over 100 percent of AMI) rather than for families at or below 100 percent of AMI. FHFA adopted the current subgoal structure, with separate subgoals for low-income census tracts and minority census tracts, to “refocus Enterprise efforts towards minority census tracts and families at or below 100 percent of AMI.”
FHFA's current model forecasts that the market for this subgoal will remain around 9.9-10 percent for 2025-2027. This forecast is based on the 2022 HMDA data and Moody's forecasts as of February 2024, and will be updated before the release of the final housing goals rule. FHFA is proposing a benchmark level for this subgoal of 4 percent, which is lower than recent and forecast performance, to be cognizant of concerns about gentrification and the displacement of low-income families in these areas.
FHFA believes that this 4 percent benchmark level addresses concerns about the potential that the Enterprises may seek to meet the goal by purchasing loans to higher-income borrowers in lower-income areas. In addition, this 4 percent benchmark level is intended to encourage the Enterprises to continue to provide access to mortgage credit in low-income census tracts.
The low-income refinance goal is based on the percentage share of all single-family, owner-occupied refinance mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are for low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI. The proposed rule would set the annual benchmark level for this goal for 2025-2027 at 26 percent.
Measured as a percent, annual performance in the overall market and by the Enterprises on low-income refinance mortgages tends to be inversely proportional to the volume of low-income refinance loans the market produces and the Enterprises purchase during a given year. For example, during the refinance boom of 2020, low-income refinance volume in the overall market soared to over 1.3 million loans, but the volume of all refinances in the market reached over 6.3 million.
FHFA is proposing to maintain the current benchmark level of 26 percent for this goal for 2025-2027. FHFA is proposing this benchmark level in recognition of the fact that FHFA's model cannot forecast low-income refinance levels in the market for 2025-2027 with great confidence, due to the high degree of unpredictability of future interest rates and the strong sensitivity of refinance originations to interest rates. Additionally, many current mortgage holders are “locked-in” and are unlikely to refinance without a substantial reduction in mortgage rates. FHFA is not aware of any long-term data series that captures this impact that can be used in the forecast model. FHFA also recognizes that if interest rates were to decline significantly, the proposed benchmark level of 26 percent could be difficult for the Enterprises to achieve based on market conditions. FHFA will continue to monitor the performance of the Enterprises and will take appropriate steps, after adoption of the final housing goals rule, to adjust the benchmark level if necessary.
The Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA to consider the following six factors in setting the multifamily housing goals:
1. National multifamily mortgage credit needs and the ability of the Enterprises to provide additional liquidity and stability for the multifamily mortgage market;
2. The performance and effort of the Enterprises in making mortgage credit available for multifamily housing in previous years;
3. The size of the multifamily mortgage market for housing affordable to low-income and very low-income families, including the size of the multifamily markets for housing of a smaller or limited size;
4. The ability of the Enterprises to lead the market in making multifamily mortgage credit available, especially for multifamily housing affordable to low-income and very low-income families;
5. The availability of public subsidies; and
6. The need to maintain the sound financial condition of the Enterprises.
Unlike the single-family housing goals, performance on the multifamily housing goals is measured solely against benchmark levels set by FHFA in the regulation, without any retrospective market measure. The absence of a retrospective market measure for the multifamily housing goals results, in part, from the lack of comprehensive data about the multifamily mortgage market. Unlike the single-family mortgage market, where HMDA provides a reasonably comprehensive dataset about single-family mortgage originations each year, the multifamily mortgage market (and the affordable multifamily mortgage market segment) has no comparable single, unified source with coverage extending across many years. As a result, it is difficult to correlate different datasets that rely on different reporting metrics.
The lack of comprehensive data for the multifamily mortgage market is even more acute with respect to the segments of the market that are targeted to low-income families, defined as families with incomes at or below 80 percent of AMI, and very low-income families, defined as families with incomes at or below 50 percent of AMI.
Another difference between the single-family and multifamily housing goals is that while there are separate single-family housing goals for home purchase and refinance mortgages, the multifamily housing goals include all Enterprise multifamily mortgage purchases, regardless of the purpose of the loan.
In consideration of public comments and to improve the responsiveness of the multifamily housing goals to market conditions, FHFA changed its process starting in 2023 for setting the multifamily benchmark levels from a numeric benchmark for units to a percentage of affordable units in multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprise each year. This ensures that the multifamily housing goals remain
FHFA has considered each of the six statutory factors in setting the proposed benchmark levels for each of the multifamily housing goals. Five of the factors relate to the multifamily mortgage market and the Enterprise role in that market. Those factors generally have similar impacts on each of the multifamily housing goals and are discussed below. The past performance of the Enterprises is discussed separately for each of the multifamily housing goals.
According to the National Multifamily Housing Council's tabulation of American Community Survey microdata, in 2022, about 47 percent of renter households (21 million households) lived in multifamily properties with the remaining renter households living in one-to-four-unit single-family structures.
For purposes of the Enterprise housing goals, the Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA to determine affordability based on whether rent levels are affordable. The Safety and Soundness Act defines a rent level as affordable if a family's rent and utility expenses do not exceed 30 percent of the maximum income level for each income category, with appropriate adjustments for unit size as measured by the number of bedrooms.
The JCHS report also notes the significant rise in new rental supply from 2021 to 2023. In 2022 alone, 342,000 multifamily units were added.
FHFA recognizes that the multifamily housing goals are just one measure of how the Enterprises contribute to and participate in the multifamily market. Other Enterprise multifamily activities include their Duty to Serve Underserved Markets Plans, Equitable Housing Finance Plans, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LITHC) equity financing, and the mission-driven elements of FHFA's Conservatorship Scorecard. Together with the housing goals, these programmatic activities provide support to renter households, including low-income families spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. FHFA will continue to monitor these initiatives and priorities to ensure appropriate focus by the Enterprises, including compliance with the Enterprises' charter acts and safety and soundness considerations.
FHFA expects the Enterprises to continue to demonstrate leadership in supporting affordable housing in the multifamily market by providing liquidity for housing for tenants at different income levels in various geographies and market segments. This support should continue throughout the economic cycle, even as the overall size of the multifamily mortgage market fluctuates.
The need for public subsidies persists as the number of cost-burdened renters remains high, at over 21.6 million renter households in 2021.
In 2024 and beyond, there should continue to be opportunities in the multifamily mortgage market to provide permanent financing for properties with LIHTCs and to preserve existing affordable units, as described above.
FHFA continues to monitor the activities of the Enterprises in this market. As discussed above and consistent with the authorities described in the Enterprise housing goals regulation, FHFA may take any steps it determines necessary and appropriate after adoption of the final housing goals rule to address the multifamily housing goals benchmark levels to ensure the Enterprises' continued safety and soundness.
Based on FHFA's consideration of the statutory factors described above and the past performance of the Enterprises under the multifamily housing goals, the proposed rule would establish benchmark levels for the multifamily housing goals, as further discussed below. Before finalizing the benchmark levels for the multifamily housing goals in the final rule, FHFA will review any additional data that becomes available about the performance of the Enterprises with regard to multifamily housing goals and any developments in the multifamily mortgage market, as well as any comments on the proposed multifamily housing goals benchmark levels.
The multifamily low-income housing goal is the percentage share of all goal-eligible units in multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprises that are affordable to low-income families in any given year. Low-income families are defined as those with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI.
Table 7 shows the annual share of goal-qualifying low-income multifamily units in properties backing mortgages acquired by each Enterprise from 2020 through 2023.
Higher interest rates are continuing to contribute to the increasing costs of acquiring low-income multifamily units, and expected declines in affordable originations and increases in rents are likely to cause fewer units to qualify as affordable for low-income families.
The multifamily very low-income housing goal is the percentage share of all goal-eligible units in multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprises that are affordable to very low-income families in any given year. Very low-income families are defined as those with incomes less than or equal to 50 percent of AMI.
Table 8 shows the number and share of goal-qualifying very low-income multifamily units as a percentage of the total goal-eligible units in properties backing mortgages acquired by each Enterprise. In addition, the historical performance share average for the pre-pandemic years of 2017-2019 would have been 13.1 percent for Fannie Mae and 15.6 percent for Freddie Mac.
Considering the multifamily mortgage market conditions described above, FHFA is proposing to set the benchmark level for this goal at 14 percent for 2025-2027, an increase from the benchmark level of 12 percent for 2023-2024. FHFA proposes to set this benchmark at a higher level to ensure that the Enterprises continue to adequately serve very low-income families while accounting for the challenges associated with elevated interest rates, lower volume of loan transactions, and the lack of affordable units in the multifamily market, as well as continued uncertain economic conditions.
FHFA believes that this proposed increase is appropriate and achievable for the Enterprises considering the past performance of the Enterprises on this housing goal.
The current Enterprise housing goals regulation defines a small multifamily property as having 5 to 50 units. The small multifamily low-income housing subgoal is based on the share of units in small multifamily properties affordable to low-income families as a percentage of all goal-eligible units in all multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprises in a given year. Low-income families are defined as those with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI.
Table 9 shows Enterprise performance on this subgoal, including the previous numeric benchmark levels applicable through 2022 and the percentage-based metric that began in 2023. FHFA recognizes that the Enterprises have different business approaches to the small multifamily market segment, and that each Enterprise sets its own credit risk tolerance for these products. As a result, each Enterprise has performed very differently on this subgoal. Since 2020, Freddie Mac has acquired more units than Fannie Mae, both in terms of percentage share of total units and volume of small low-income units. Based on preliminary data, both Enterprises exceeded the benchmark level of 2.5 percent for this subgoal in 2023.
While FHFA has observed increased private sector financing for small multifamily properties in recent years, elevated interest rates have resulted in fewer multifamily transactions and therefore less activity among secondary mortgage market participants more broadly. Taking these factors into account, FHFA proposes to set the benchmark level for this subgoal at 2 percent for 2025-2027, which would be lower than the benchmark level of 2.5 percent applicable for 2023-2024. FHFA believes that this proposed benchmark level will ensure that the Enterprises support this market when needed without crowding out other sources of financing for small multifamily properties.
The proposed rule would not contain any information collection requirement that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly known as
Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513, and 4526, FHFA proposes to amend part 1282 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4501, 4502, 4511, 4513, 4526, 4561-4566.
(a) * * *
(1) Three single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage housing goals, two single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage housing subgoals, a single-family refinancing mortgage housing goal, two multifamily housing goals, and a multifamily housing subgoal;
(c) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2025, 2026, and 2027 shall be 25 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(d) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2025, 2026, and 2027 shall be 6 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The benchmark level, which for 2025, 2026, and 2027 shall be 4 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(g) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2025, 2026, and 2027 shall be 12 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(h) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2025, 2026, and 2027 shall be 26 percent of the total number of refinancing mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(i) The share of the market as defined in § 1282.12(b) for the applicable goal is lower than the benchmark level for the goal; and
(ii) The Enterprise's performance meets or exceeds the share of the market minus the enforcement factor for the applicable goal as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) The following enforcement factors apply for the years 2025, 2026, and 2027:
(i) For the single-family low-income families housing goal, 1.3 percentage points;
(ii) For the single-family very low-income families housing goal, 0.5 percentage points; and
(iii) For the single-family refinancing housing goal, 1.3 percentage points.
(3) The enforcement factor in this paragraph (b) will not apply to a goal in 2027 if the Enterprise failed to meet that goal for each of the previous two years.
(c)
(1) Be feasible;
(2) Be sufficiently specific to enable the Director to monitor compliance periodically;
(3) Describe the specific actions that the Enterprise will take in a time period determined by the Director to improve the Enterprise's performance under the housing goal; and
(4) Address any additional matters relevant to the plan as required, in writing, by the Director.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Proposed rule.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is proposing to amend its regulations that govern floating cabins located on the Tennessee River System.
Written comments must be received on or before September 30, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by RIN 3316-AA25, by any of the following methods:
David B. Harrell, 865-632-1327,
These proposed amendments are promulgated under the authority of the TVA Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 831
TVA is a multi-purpose federal agency that has been charged by Congress with promoting the wise use and conservation of the resources of the Tennessee Valley region, including the Tennessee River System. In carrying out this mission, TVA operates a system of dams and reservoirs on the Tennessee River and its tributaries for the purposes of navigation, flood control, and power production. Consistent with those purposes, TVA uses the system to improve water quality and water supply and to provide a wide range of public benefits including recreation.
To promote the unified development and regulation of the Tennessee River System, Congress directed TVA to approve obstructions across, along, or in the river system under Section 26a of the TVA Act. “Obstruction” is a broad term that includes, by way of example, boat docks, piers, boathouses, buoys, floats, boat launching ramps, fills, water intakes, devices for discharging effluents, bridges, aerial cables, culverts, pipelines, fish attractors, shoreline stabilization projects, channel excavations, and floating cabins. TVA also owns, as agent for the United States, much of the shoreland and
The proposed amendments would modify health, safety, and environmental standards for floating cabins, including standards for electrical safety. The proposed amendments also address TVA's management and administration of the floating cabins program, including clarification around the allowable size of the structures. The proposed amendments would extend the deadline to allow floating cabin owners until October 1, 2029, to comply with the rules and apply for a Section 26a permit. TVA also proposes to make other minor changes to its Section 26a regulations for clarity and consistency.
Since 1971, TVA has used its Section 26a authority to prohibit the mooring on the Tennessee River System of new floating cabins (formerly nonnavigable houseboats) that are designed and used primarily for habitation and not for water transportation. In particular, TVA amended its regulations in 1971 to prohibit the mooring or anchoring of new nonnavigable houseboats except for those in existence before November 21, 1971. Since 1971, TVA has made minor changes to its regulations affecting nonnavigable houseboats, including in 1978 when TVA prohibited mooring of nonnavigable houseboats on the Tennessee River System except for those in existence on or before February 15, 1978. Effective October 1, 2018, TVA updated its regulations to change the terminology to floating cabins (rather than nonnavigable houseboats) and prohibit new floating cabins that did not exist on the Tennessee River System on or before December 16, 2016.
Despite over 40 years of regulation related to floating cabins, the number of floating cabins on the Tennessee River System continued to increase. In determining what action to take with respect to floating cabins, TVA prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. This EIS assessed the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of different policies to address the proliferation of floating cabins on the Tennessee River System. TVA released a draft of this EIS for public comment in June 2015 and held four public meetings and a webinar to provide information about its analyses and to facilitate public involvement. The final EIS and associated documents can be found at
After considering the comments received during the EIS process and the analyses of impacts, TVA identified as its preferred policy one that establishes standards to ensure safer mooring, electrical connections, and protection of water quality. Under the preferred policy, the mooring of new floating cabins would be prohibited on the Tennessee River System. The preferred policy would have required all existing floating cabins, including nonnavigable houseboats, to be removed from the Tennessee River System by January 1, 2036, and be subject to a regulatory program in the interim. On May 5, 2016, the TVA Board of Directors adopted the preferred policy, except the Board extended the removal date to May 5, 2046.
On December 16, 2016, Congress enacted the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 (WIIN Act). Section 5003 related to floating cabins and amended the TVA Act to include Section 9b (16 U.S.C. 831h-3). This new section of the TVA Act provides that TVA may approve and allow the use of floating cabins on waters under the jurisdiction of TVA as of December 16, 2016, if the floating cabin is maintained to reasonable health, safety, and environmental standards as required by the TVA Board of Directors and if the owner pays a compliance fee if assessed by TVA. The WIIN Act stipulates that TVA may not require the removal of a floating cabin that was located on the Tennessee River System as of December 16, 2016: (1) for a period of 15 years if it was granted a permit by TVA before enactment, or (2) for a period of 5 years if it was not granted a permit by TVA before enactment. It further stipulates that TVA may establish regulations to prevent the construction of new floating cabins.
TVA published “Phase I” rule amendments for floating cabins that became effective on October 1, 2018. These amendments clarified the types of structures that TVA will regulate as a floating cabin and prohibited new floating cabins from mooring on the Tennessee River System after December 16, 2016. TVA estimates that approximately 2,200 floating cabins were moored on the Tennessee River System on December 16, 2016.
TVA published “Phase II” rule amendments for floating cabins that became effective on October 12, 2021. These amendments included health, safety, environmental, and permitting standards that apply to all floating cabins and a deadline by which floating cabin owners were to apply to TVA for a Section 26a permit. A diverse stakeholder group composed of 18 members advised TVA on the development and drafting of these standards. Owners of floating cabins were given until October 1, 2024, to comply with the standards in TVA's regulations and submit a complete permit application that certifies compliance and includes the payment of a Section 26a permit application fee. The permit application submission date of October 1, 2024, gave owners approximately three years from the effective date of the new standards to bring structures into compliance.
TVA's permitting requirements for floating cabins apply to all existing floating cabins, including those formerly referred to as nonnavigable houseboats originally permitted on or before February 15, 1978. All floating cabins and attached structures will require a new permit.
TVA has encouraged floating cabin owners to bring floating cabins into compliance and then apply for a permit without delay; however, various factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain and labor resource shortages, and state wastewater certification decisions caused delays for floating cabin owners to achieve compliance. The proposed amendment extends the deadline for owners to comply with all standards and submit a Section 26a permit application that certifies compliance no later than October 1, 2029. TVA may deny an initial application for floating cabins if it is submitted past the deadline of October 1, 2029.
Upon submission of the application, owners of floating cabins may remain in place until TVA acts on the application. If TVA approves the application, TVA will issue a Section 26a permit to the owner. If TVA denies the application, the owner must remove the structure in accordance with Section 9b of the TVA Act and 18 CFR 1304.406.
The proposal also clarifies language on rebuilding floating cabins. Any alterations to the dimensions or approved plans for an existing floating cabin (monolithic frame or attached structure) are deemed a structural modification and require written approval from TVA.
Floating cabins can pose a threat to public safety due to unsafe electrical systems. TVA is aware that floating cabins are currently obtaining electricity from the shore via underwater cables, through onboard portable generators, and by other methods. When the final Phase II rule on floating cabins was published in 2021, TVA was not aware
TVA is not changing the requirement that floating cabin owners comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding electrical wiring and equipment. If a floating cabin is documented to be in violation of any federal, state, or local electrical standard or regulation by the respective regulatory agency, TVA may revoke the permit and require removal of the floating cabin from the Tennessee River System if the violation is not corrected as specified by the relevant regulatory agency in accordance with the agency's requirements. TVA proposes to remove the separate electrical standards for floating cabins from the Section 26a regulations and remove the requirement that floating cabin owners submit a certification of compliance to TVA every even-numbered year. This appropriately recognizes that state and local agencies are best equipped to adopt and enforce electrical standards for floating cabins while reinforcing compliance with those standards is a condition of the Section 26a permit. The regulations also clarify that applicants must provide documentation, upon TVA's request, that demonstrates the floating cabin is in compliance with wastewater and electric standards. In the event that a floating cabin owner fails to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance upon request, TVA is authorized to revoke the Section 26a permit and require removal of the floating cabin from the reservoir.
In addition to the changes affecting floating cabins listed above, TVA is proposing other minor amendments to the Section 26a regulations. These include minor edits for clarity and consistency in the regulations, including a clarification to the regulations that TVA's issuance of a permit for any proposed facility or obstruction does not mean the proposed facility or obstruction has been deemed safe by TVA and that TVA may proceed with the review of an application absent the submission of some of the noted information.
This proposal contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal government or for the private sector. TVA has determined it will not have a significant annual effect of $200 million or more or result in expenditures of $200 million in any one year by state, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector. The proposal will not have a substantial direct effect on the States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States or Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and States or Indian tribes. Nor will the proposal have concerns for environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children, have significant effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or disproportionally impact low-income or minority populations. Unified development and regulation of the Tennessee River System through an approval process for obstructions across, along, or in the river system and management of United States-owned land entrusted to TVA are federal functions for which TVA is responsible under the TVA Act, as amended. In general, this proposal updates TVA's regulations relating to the standards that floating cabins will be required to meet in order to remain on the Tennessee River System. Absent a request for these services for a Section 26a permit, no entity or individual would be forced to pay a charge. None of the charges would be applied retroactively. TVA will continue to appropriately review specific requests in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605, TVA is required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. TVA's Chief Executive Officer has certified that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The statute defines “small entity” as a “small business,” “small organization” (further defined as a “not-for-profit enterprise”), or a “small governmental jurisdiction.” Most floating cabins are owned by individuals and not businesses, not-for-profit enterprises, or small governmental jurisdictions, and therefore relatively few “small entities” will be affected by TVA's proposal. Even if the proposed amendments tangentially impact marinas that accommodate floating cabins, a relatively small number of marinas will be impacted. Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; no regulatory flexibility analysis is required; and TVA's Chief Executive Officer has made the requisite certification.
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural resources, Navigation (water), Rivers, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Tennessee Valley Authority proposes to amend 18 CFR part 1304 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 831-831ee.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(b) Applications shall be submitted on TVA's online application system or addressed to the Tennessee Valley Authority, at the appropriate location as listed on the application and on TVA's website.* * *
(c) * * * TVA, in its sole discretion, may proceed with the review of an application in the absence of some materials listed in this section.
(e) TVA's issuance of a permit does not mean that TVA has determined a facility or obstruction is safe for any purpose or that TVA has any duty to make such a determination. In issuing a permit, TVA assumes no liability to the applicant or to any third party for any damages to property or personal injuries arising out of or in any way connected with applicant's construction, operation, or maintenance of the permitted facility.
The revision and addition read as follows:
* * * Existing floating cabins may remain moored on the Tennessee River System provided they remain in compliance with the rules in this part and obtain a section 26a permit from TVA issued after October 12, 2021. Existing floating cabins that do not apply for a permit by the deadline in this part or do not remain in compliance with the rules in this part are subject to the removal provisions of this part and section 9b of the TVA Act.* * *
The revisions read as follows:
(c) All floating cabins shall comply with the rules contained in this part and make application for a section 26a permit by October 1, 2029. TVA may, at its sole discretion, deny an initial application for a floating cabin submitted after this date. Unpermitted structures are subject to the removal provisions of this part and Section 9b of the TVA Act.
(h) * * *
(2) Any alterations to the dimensions or approved plans for an existing floating cabin (monolithic frame or attached structure) shall be deemed a structural modification and shall require prior written approval from TVA. All expansions in length, width, or height are prohibited, except under the following circumstances if approved in writing in advance by TVA. Structural modifications to attached structures are subject to § 1304.101(i).
(3) Owners must submit an application to TVA sixty (60) days in advance of proposed rebuilding of an entire or significant portion of a floating cabin (monolithic frame or attached structures). The owner shall not begin construction until prior written acknowledgment from TVA is received. Plans for removal of the existing floating cabin or portions to be rebuilt shall be acknowledged in writing by TVA before removal occurs, and the removal shall be at the owner's expense before construction of the rebuild may begin. The owner shall provide evidence of approval from the marina operator to rebuild within the approved harbor limits of a commercial marina. TVA may require a new permit for the proposed rebuilding. Construction of the rebuilt floating cabin must be completed within 18 months. The rebuilt monolithic frame of the floating cabin shall match the exact configuration and dimensions (length, width, and height) of both the total monolithic frame and the enclosed and open space as approved by TVA; attached structures are subject to § 1304.101(i). The footprint of the attached structures shall not be incorporated into the footprint of the monolithic frame of the floating cabin.
(i) * * *
(3) Attached structures shall not exceed 14 feet in height from the lowest floor level, shall not be enclosed, shall not be connected to the monolithic frame by a single roofline, and shall comply with § 1304.204(p).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(d)
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This is notice that the Drug Enforcement Administration will hold a hearing with respect to the proposed rescheduling of marijuana into schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The proposed rescheduling of marijuana was initially proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the
Interested persons desiring to participate in this hearing must provide written notice of desired participation as set out below, on or before September 30, 2024.
The hearing will commence on December 2, 2024, at 9 a.m. ET at 700
To ensure proper handling of notification, please reference “Docket No. DEA-1362” on all correspondence.
•
•
Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
On May 21, 2024, the Department of Justice published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to transfer marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to schedule III of the CSA, consistent with the view of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use, has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II, and that its abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
The NPRM stated that if the transfer to schedule III is finalized, the regulatory controls applicable to schedule III controlled substances would apply, as appropriate, along with existing marijuana-specific requirements and any additional controls that might be implemented, including those that might be implemented to meet U.S. treaty obligations. If marijuana is transferred into schedule III, the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA. Any drugs containing a substance within the CSA's definition of “marijuana” would also remain subject to the applicable prohibition in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
The NPRM invited interested parties to submit requests for hearing on or before June 20, 2024. DEA received numerous requests for a hearing in response to the NPRM.
Upon review of the requests for a hearing, I am authorizing a hearing to be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559), the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 CFR 1308.41, DEA will convene a hearing on the NPRM. The hearing will commence on December 2, 2024, at 9 a.m. ET at the DEA Hearing Facility, 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557, and 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45, and 1316.41-1316.68. DEA is committed to conducting a transparent proceeding. Regarding the methods of public access, DEA will provide updates on the DEA website,
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 and 812, the purpose of the hearing is to “receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding” whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances. 21 CFR 1308.42.
Every interested person (defined in 21 CFR 1300.01(b) as “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable” under 21 U.S.C. 811), who wishes to participate in the hearing shall file a written notice of intention to participate for review by the Agency. Electronic filing may be made as a PDF attachment via email to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator at
Each notice of intention to participate must conform to 21 CFR 1308.44(b) and in the form prescribed in 21 CFR 1316.48. Among those requirements, such requests must:
(1) State with particularity the interest of the person in the proceeding;
(2) State with particularity the objections or issues concerning which the person desires to be heard; and
(3) State briefly the position of the person regarding the objections or issues.
Any person who has previously filed a request for hearing or to participate in a hearing need not file another request; the request for hearing is deemed to be a notice of appearance under 21 CFR 1308.44(b).
After the deadline to request to participate in the hearing, I will assess the notices submitted and make a determination of participants. Following that assessment, I will designate a presiding officer to preside over the hearing. The presiding officer's functions shall commence upon designation, as provided in 21 CFR 1316.52. The presiding officer will have all powers necessary to conduct a fair hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order.
Comments on or objections to the proposed rule submitted under 21 CFR 1308.43(g) will be offered as evidence at the hearing, but the presiding officer shall admit only evidence that is competent, relevant, material, and not unduly repetitive. 21 CFR 1316.59(a).
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 32,360-acre “Rancho Guejito” American viticultural area (AVA) in San Diego County, California. The proposed AVA is located entirely within the existing South Coast AVA and would partially overlap the existing San Pasqual Valley AVA. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
TTB must receive your comments on or before October 28, 2024.
You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this proposal using the comment form for this document as posted within Docket No. TTB-2024-0004 on the “Regulations.gov” website at
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated certain administrative and enforcement authorities to TTB through Treasury Order 120-01.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
• If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Rancho Guejito Vineyard, Inc., proposing to establish the “Rancho Guejito” AVA. The proposed AVA is located in San Diego County, California, and is entirely within the existing South Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.104) and, if established, would partially overlap the established San Pasqual Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.25). Within the proposed AVA, there are seven commercial vineyards which cover a total of 49.5 acres. At the time the petition was submitted, an additional four new vineyards and the expansion of three existing vineyards were planned. The distinguishing features of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are its topography, geology, and climate. The petition also included information about the soils of the proposed AVA. However, because the petition did not include information about the soils of the surrounding regions for comparison, TTB was unable to determine if soils are a distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA.
The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA takes its name from the Rancho Guejito y Cañada de Paloma land grant, which the Mexican Governor issued to José María Orozco in 1845. According to the petition, the land grant's name translates to “ranch with a stream in a glen of the dove.” The petition notes that of the 800 ranchos recognized by the U.S. Government, Rancho Guejito is the only one whose boundaries remain intact. The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA will encompass the entire original land grant and the adjacent slope areas that contribute to Guejito Creek. The petition included a copy of an 1882
The petition included evidence that the region of the proposed AVA is currently known as “Rancho Guejito.” For instance, a 2007 newspaper article about the region of the proposed AVA is titled “Rancho Guejito-Southern California's land that time forgot.”
The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA is located in San Diego County and is entirely within the established South Coast AVA. The proposed AVA encompasses the Rancho Guejito land grant, and its boundaries largely correspond with those of the land grant. The proposed boundary, in part, is concurrent with the boundary of the La Jolla Indian Reservation, which is omitted from the proposed AVA due to its status as Tribal land. The proposed eastern boundary separates the proposed AVA from the Cleveland National Forest and the Mesa Grande Indian Reservation. The southern boundary separates the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA from the majority of the established San Pasqual Valley AVA. The proposed western boundary separates the proposed AVA from the San Pasqual Indian Reservation, and farther to the west, the heavily urbanized city of Escondido.
The southernmost region of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA overlaps a small portion of the San Pasqual Valley AVA known as Rockwood Canyon. The overlapping area comprises 308 acres of the approximately 9,000-acre established San Pasqual Valley AVA. The petition requests retaining the partial overlap for reasons discussed later in this rulemaking document.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are its topography, geology, and climate.
The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA is situated approximately 33 miles northeast of the city of San Diego. Although the proposed AVA is not immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, the petition states that there are no hills between the proposed AVA and the ocean. The flatter, lower terrain west of the proposed AVA allows for marine air to reach the proposed AVA, which has a moderating effect on its climate. By contrast, the neighboring established Ramona Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.191), to the southeast of the proposed AVA, is farther inland and surrounded by higher elevations. As a result, the Ramona Valley AVA receives less marine air than the proposed AVA. The petition states that because of the marine influence, the proposed AVA generally has cooler year-round high temperatures and warmer year-round low temperatures than regions farther inland.
The petition describes the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA as a region of diverse topography, with varied elevations and landforms. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from 420 feet to 4,210 feet. The northern portion of the proposed AVA is characterized by high elevations, rugged mountains, and steep canyons complimented with lush meadows. The southern portion of the proposed AVA is characterized by lower elevations with gently rolling hills and large expanses of grasslands. Although the proposed AVA includes areas with steep slopes, the petition notes that 33 percent, or 10,540 acres, within the proposed AVA are 15 percent or less in slope angle. The following table shows the elevation and slope angles of the existing and planned vineyards within the proposed AVA.
The petition states that the diversity of the topography within the proposed AVA affects the climate and precipitation and allows a large variety of grape varietals to grow successfully. At the time the petition was submitted, 24 different varieties of grapes were grown in the proposed AVA, including the cool-climate chardonnay and the warm-climate syrah and cabernet sauvignon varietals.
Unlike the proposed AVA, the topography of the surrounding regions is less diverse. To the immediate north of the proposed AVA, the elevations drop sharply into the San Luis Rey watershed, and the slope angles are steeper and unsuitable for viticulture. To the southeast of the proposed AVA is the established Ramona Valley AVA, which is described as a broad, flat valley ringed by hills. The petition states that the Ramona Valley AVA has less variation in elevations than the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, and the average vineyard elevation is 1,400 feet. South of the proposed AVA is the established San Pasqual Valley AVA, which is a large alluvial valley with elevations less than 500 feet. To the west of the northern part of the proposed AVA, elevations drop sharply into Hellhole Canyon, within the Hellhole Canyon Preserve. Farther west beyond the canyon is the San Diego Zoo Safari Park and the largely residential suburbs of San Diego. The petition states that the largely man-made character of this region distinguishes it physically from the largely undeveloped terrain of the proposed AVA.
According to the petition, the primary geologic formation underlying the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA is Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous tonalite, which is an igneous, plutonic rock with a coarse texture. The northern portion of the proposed AVA also contains Early Proterozoic to Late Cretaceous plutonic rock and Triassic to Cretaceous gabbro, while the southern region also contains a small amount of Pliocene to Holocene alluvium. The decomposition of the plutonic rock contributes to the formation of soils. The primary soil series of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are Fallbrook, Ramona, Visalia, and Placentia loams. These soils are described as coarse, well-drained, moderately deep to deep sandy loams. However, because the petition did not include a comparison of the soils of the surrounding regions, TTB is unable to determine if soils are a separate distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA.
The petition also states that the decomposition of these geologic features over millennia contributes minerals that are important to the health of grapevines. For example, gabbro is rich in magnesium and iron, which play important roles in chlorophyll formation and photosynthesis as well as cell strengthening. The plutonic rocks in tonalite decompose into soils that are generally sandy, coarse, and drain well and are desirable for growing grape varietals such as Grenache, Claret Blanc, and Rousanne.
To the north and east of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous tonalite is also present, but geologic formations consisting of gabbro and schist are more common than within the proposed AVA. South of the proposed AVA, in the established San Pasqual Valley AVA, the most common geologic feature is Pliocene to Holocene alluvium. To the west of the proposed AVA, Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous tonalite is also the most common geologic feature, but the urban nature of this region makes it less suitable for commercial viticulture.
The petition describes the overall climate of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA as a Mediterranean climate, meaning that the region experiences dry, mild summers and precipitation is limited to the winter months, generally between October and April. Due to the diversity of elevations within the proposed AVA, temperatures are also diverse, with the higher elevations in the north of the proposed AVA typically having cooler temperatures and smaller growing degree day (GDD)
The GDD accumulations in the highest elevations of the proposed AVA are lower than those of the regions to the south and southeast of the proposed AVA, which have lower elevations. The lowest and middle-range elevations of the proposed AVA have higher GDD accumulations than the regions to the south and southeast. The petition attributes the lower GDD accumulations in the San Pasqual Valley AVA to the fact that the AVA is a valley that acts as a cold sink, trapping the cool air that drains from the higher elevations of the proposed AVA at night. The petition states that the Ramona Valley AVA is farther inland than the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA and thus temperatures are less moderated by the marine air, resulting in a more continental climate with cooler nighttime temperatures that can reduce GDD accumulations.
To further demonstrate the impact of the marine influence on climate within the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, the petition included average monthly growing season maximum and minimum temperatures from within the proposed AVA and from within the Ramona Valley AVA.
The South Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-218, which published in the
The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA shares the coastal climate of the larger South Coast AVA. However, the proposed AVA's smaller size means that its geographic features, while varied, are more uniform than those of the much larger, multi-county South Coast AVA. Additionally, although the proposed AVA receives marine air from the Pacific Ocean, it does not receive as much as portions of the South Coast AVA that are adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.
The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA would, if established, partially overlap 308 acres of the established San Pasqual Valley AVA in a region known as Rockwood Canyon. The overlapping region is in the southern portion of the proposed AVA and the eastern portion of the San Pasqual Valley AVA.
The “Rancho Guejito” name applies to the overlapping region, as it does to the proposed AVA. For example, Guejito Creek runs through both the
According to the petition, in the overlapping area, the climate transitions between the middle elevations of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA and the San Pasqual Valley AVA and shares characteristics of both regions. For example, the average monthly minimum temperatures within the overlapping area are similar to those in the established San Pasqual Valley AVA. Cool nighttime air draining from the higher elevations in the northern portion of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA flow south and into lower elevations of the overlapping area and the San Pasqual Valley AVA. The following table shows the average monthly minimum temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit for Rockwood Canyon, within the overlapping area, and for a location solely within the San Pasqual Valley AVA.
However, the petition notes that the cool nighttime air remains longer in the San Pasqual Valley AVA because the east-west oriented valley acts as a cold sink to trap the cooler air, while the north-south orientation of the overlapping region allows the cold air to pass through the canyon and into the valley. As a result, nighttime temperatures in the San Pasqual Valley AVA remain cooler for more hours, reducing annual GDD accumulations. As discussed earlier in the climate section of this document, GDD accumulations in the middle and low elevations of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are greater than those of the San Pasqual Valley AVA.
The geology of the overlapping area also shares the traits of both the proposed AVA and the established San Pasqual Valley AVA.
The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA petition stated that the proposed AVA receives between 13 and 24 inches of rain a year. Because the petition did not adequately describe the effects of precipitation on viticulture, TTB does not consider precipitation to be a distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA. However, the petition did include a map illustrating mean annual precipitation amounts for the San Pasqual Valley AVA and the proposed AVA,
The petition also included information about the specific soils of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, but it did not provide sufficient evidence about the soils of the surrounding regions or the viticultural effects of soil for TTB to designate soils as a distinguishing feature. However, the petition did include a map of the hydrologic soils groups of the proposed AVA and the eastern portion of the San Pasqual Valley AVA.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 32,360-acre “Rancho Guejito” AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document.
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Rancho Guejito,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Rancho Guejito” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. The approval of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “South Coast” as an appellation of origin, or in a brand name, for wines made from grapes grown within the Rancho Guejito AVA would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. If approved, the establishment of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA would allow vintners to use “Rancho Guejito,” “South Coast,” or both AVA names as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Vintners would be able to use “San Pasqual Valley,” “Rancho Guejito,” “South Coast,” or a combination of the three AVA names as appellations of origin on wines made primarily from grapes grown within the overlapping portion of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether TTB should establish the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA. TTB is interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, topography, geology, soils, and climate, and other required information submitted in support of the AVA petition. In addition, because the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA would be within the existing South Coast AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing South Coast AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are so distinguishable from the South Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should not be part of the established AVA. Finally, TTB is interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the portion of the established San Pasqual Valley AVA that overlap the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the rest of the established AVA that the overlapping area should no longer be part of the San Pasqual Valley AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA on wine labels that include the term “Rancho Guejito” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area names and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the proposed AVA.
You may submit comments on this proposal as an individual or on behalf of a business or other organization via the
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the rulemaking record and are subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or that is inappropriate for disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, the related petition, supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives about this proposal within the related
Please contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings division by email using the web form available at
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) San Pasqual, CA, 2018;
(2) Rodriguez Mountain, CA, 2018;
(3) Boucher Hill, CA, 2018;
(4) Palomar Observatory, CA, 2018; and
(5) Mesa Grande, CA, 2018.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the San Pasqual map at the intersection of State Route 78 (locally known as San Pasqual Valley Road) and Santa Ysabel Creek. From the beginning point, proceed northwest, then west, then southwest along State Route 78 to its intersection with the western boundary of Section 35, T12S/R1W; then
(2) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the 992-foot elevation point in Section 27, T12S/R1W; then
(3) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the 1,480-foot elevation point in Section 27, T12S/R1W; then
(4) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the intersection of the western boundary of Section 22, T12S/R1W, and the 1,100-foot elevation contour; then
(5) Proceed north along the western boundary of Section 22, T12S/R1W, to the northern boundary of Section 22; then
(6) Proceed east along the north boundary of Section 22, T12S/R1W, to the 1,798-foot elevation point; then
(7) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line for 2,300 feet, crossing onto the Rodriguez Mountain map, to the 2,218-foot elevation point in Section 15, T12S/R1W; then
(8) Proceed north in a straight line for 3,100 feet to the 2,237-foot elevation point in Section 15, T12S/R1W; then
(9) Proceed northerly in a straight line for 5,900 feet to the intersection of Old Melrose Ranch Road and New Moon Lane in Section 3, T12S/R1W; then
(10) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing the peak of French Mountain and over Escondido Creek, to the 1,520-foot elevation contour in section 34, T12S/R1W; then
(11) Proceed northeasterly along the 1,520-foot elevation contour for 1,300 feet to its intersection with Escondido Creek; then
(12) Proceed easterly along Escondido Creek to its easternmost point in Section 25, T12S/R1W; then
(13) Proceed northerly in a straight line for 8,100 feet to the 2,300-foot elevation contour north of Sierra Verde Road in Section 24, T12S/R1W; then
(14) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 13,000 feet to the peak of Rodriguez Mountain with an elevation of 3,846 feet in Section 8, T12S/R1W; then
(15) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line for 9,500 feet, crossing onto the Boucher Hill map, to the northern boundary of Section 4, T11S/R1E, which is also concurrent with the boundary of the La Jolla Indian Reservation; then
(16) Proceed east along the northern boundary of Section 4 for 15,900 feet, crossing onto the Palomar Observatory map, and continuing along the northern boundaries of Sections 3, 2, and 1, T11S/R1E, to the second intersection of the northern boundary of Section 1 and the 3,200-foot elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed due south in a straight line for 6,500 feet, crossing onto the Mesa Grande map, to the intersection of an unnamed road known locally as Pine Mountain Road and the 3,500-foot elevation contour in Section 12, T11S/R1E; then
(18) Proceed southeasterly along Pine Mountain Road for 3,800 feet to its intersection with the 3,440-foot elevation contour in Section 12, T11S/R1E; then
(19) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line for 6,910 feet to the northeast corner of Section 23, T11S/R1E; then
(20) Proceed due south along the eastern boundary of Section 23 for 4,600 feet to its intersection with Temescal Creek; then
(21) Proceed southwesterly along Temescal Creek for 6,800 feet to its intersection with the northern boundary of Section 35, T11S/R1E; then
(22) Proceed west along the northern boundary of Sections 35 and 34, crossing onto the Rodriguez Mountain map, to the northwestern corner of Section 34; then
(23) Proceed south along the western boundary of Section 34, T11S/R1E, to the northeastern corner of Section 4, T12S/R1E; then
(24) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of Section 4 to its intersection with the 1,600-foot elevation contour; then
(25) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the northernmost point of an unnamed pond in Section 4, T12S/R1E; then
(26) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the intersection of the eastern boundary of Section 8, T12S/R1E, and the Guejito Truck Trail; then
(27) Proceed southwesterly along the Guejito Truck Trail, crossing onto the San Pasqual map, to its intersection with the northern boundary of Section 10, T12S/R1E; then
(28) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line to the 1,880-foot elevation point in Section 20; then
(29) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 3,650 feet to the 1,937-foot elevation point in Section 29, T12S/R1E; then
(30) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 5,400 feet to the southern boundary of Section 30, T12S/R1E; then
(31) Proceed west along the southern boundaries of Sections 30 and 25 to the southwestern corner of Section 25, T12S/R1E; then
(32) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line to the beginning point.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed action.
Rhode Island has applied to EPA for final authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA proposes to grant final authorization to
Send your written comments by September 30, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2023-0612 by mail to Liz McCarthy or Joe Hayes, RCRA Waste Management and Lead Branch; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division; EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mailcode 07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912. You may also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Liz McCarthy or Joe Hayes at (617) 918-1447; (617) 918-1362,
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Unless EPA receives written comments that oppose this authorization during the comment period, the final action will become effective on the date it establishes, and EPA will not take further action on this proposal. If EPA receives comments that oppose the authorization, we will withdraw the final action and it will not take immediate effect. EPA will then respond to public comments in a later final action based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the Construction Consensus Improvement Act of 2021 that prohibits the use of reverse auctions for certain construction services.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at the address shown below on or before October 28, 2024, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2023-003 to the Federal eRulemaking portal at
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at 202-821-9776 or by email at
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to revise the FAR to implement section 2 of the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-28). Section 2 of the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021 amended section 402 of Title IV of Division U of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) entitled the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2020 to require rulemaking to promulgate a definition of “complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services”, which includes site planning and design; architectural and engineering services (as defined in 40 U.S.C. 1102); interior design; performance of substantial construction work for facility, infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects; and construction or substantial alteration of public buildings or public works. The statute prohibits the use of reverse auctions for such services having a value that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT).
The proposed rule establishes a new definition at FAR 2.101 for “complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services” that reflects the statutory definition to support its use at FAR 17.803 and 36.103. In addition, the definition of “reverse auction” in FAR 2.101 is revised to better reflect the statutory definition provided in the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021.
The proposed rule implements the prohibition against using reverse auctions for the procurement of complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services exceeding the SAT at FAR 36.103, Methods of contracting. This placement will reinforce to contracting officers the need to comply with the statutory prohibition. While the statute does not prohibit the use of reverse auctions for the subject services at or below the SAT, a reverse auction may only be used if market research indicates it is appropriate (see FAR 17.802(a)) and not prohibited by regulation or statute (see FAR 17.803, 36.104, and 36.601).
The FAR identifies two types of procurements for which reverse auctions may not be used, regardless of dollar value:
This proposed rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, for commercial products including commercially available off-the-shelf items, or for commercial services.
The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact on the public or the Government because the rulemaking does not supersede current statutory direction on the use of FAR part 36 procedures for construction. Contracting officers are still required to conduct market research to determine the most appropriate contracting method for the particular procurement. Requirements for sealed bidding, design-build construction, and architect-engineering services remain unchanged.
Offerors participating in competitive procurements that are valued at or below the SAT will still be provided advance notices and solicitations in accordance with FAR 36.211 and for actions anticipated to be awarded to a small business, 15 U.S.C. 644(w). Use of a reverse auction as the method of obtaining pricing does not impact these requirements.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (as amended by E.O. 14094) and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, because the rulemaking is not expected to change how construction services valued above the SAT are conducted while providing some flexibility for certain awards valued at or below the SAT. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 2 of the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-28), which prohibits the use of reverse auctions for complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT). DoD, GSA, and NASA published FAR case 2015-038, Reverse Auction Guidance, as a final rule at 89 FR 61327 on July 30, 2024, with an effective date of August 29, 2024. The final rule added policy on the use of reverse auctions to the FAR.
The objective of the proposed rule is to establish a definition for complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services and to implement the statutory prohibition against using reverse auctions for such services that are valued above the SAT. The legal basis for the rule is the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-28). Promulgation of the FAR is authorized by 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C 20113.
The proposed rule will apply to all entities submitting offers in response to solicitations for construction services pursuant to FAR part 36; however, the impact of the rule on construction services valued above the SAT is expected to be de minimis because the rule maintains current direction.
The rule may impact entities submitting offers in response to solicitations for construction services valued at or below the SAT, if a contracting officer determines that market research supports the use of a reverse auction and the use of a reverse auction is not otherwise prohibited by statute (
Since the Government does not currently collect data on the number of awards that utilized a reverse auction to obtain pricing, the burden estimates are based upon data obtained from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for all construction services. The Government assumes that reverse auctions are not widely used for construction services, so the actual number of procurements utilizing reverse auctions is estimated to be only a small fraction of the total awards described below.
Data obtained from FPDS for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022 indicates that an average of 1,318 unique small entities were awarded an estimated 2,644 construction service awards valued above the SAT annually. Data obtained from FPDS for the same period indicates that an average of 1,277 unique small entities were awarded an estimated 3,064 construction service awards valued at or below the SAT annually. Of those actions, approximately 122 small entities were awarded an estimated 577 construction service awards annually using procedures other than FAR part 36. For awards at or below the SAT, the use of reverse auctions to obtain pricing may be appropriate.
The proposed rule does not include additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no available alternatives to the proposed rule to accomplish the desired objective.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in
This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 2, 17, 36, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(1) Site planning and landscape design;
(2) Architectural and engineering services (as defined in 40 U.S.C. 1102);
(3) Interior design;
(4) Performance of substantial construction work for facility, infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects; or
(5) Construction or substantial alteration of public buildings or public works.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services as defined in 2.101, valued above the simplified acquisition threshold (see 36.103(c));
(c) Contracting officers shall not use reverse auctions for an award of a contract, blanket purchase agreement, or order if the award is anticipated to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold for complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services in accordance with the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-28). Contracting officers may use reverse auctions for procurements for complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services at or below the simplified acquisition threshold—
(1) If market research indicates it may be appropriate (see 17.802(a)); and
(2) Use of a reverse auction is not otherwise prohibited by regulation or statute (see 17.803, 36.104, and 36.601).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
United States African Development Foundation.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration. This meeting will occur at the USADF office.
The meeting date is Monday, September 9, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
Kerline Perry, (202)233-8805.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by September 30, 2024. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information
Comments regarding this information collection received September 30, 2024 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with testing, surveillance, and reporting of the incidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in dairy cattle, and certification of dairy cattle herds as a result of testing.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 28, 2024.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on APHIS' Veterinary Services efforts to control and eradicate HPAI in dairy cattle, contact Dr. Megan Schmid, Assistant Director, Cattle Health Center, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, Fort Collins, CO 80524; (512) 745-9862; email:
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is a contagious viral disease of domestic poultry and wild birds. HPAI is deadly to domestic poultry and can wipe out entire flocks within a matter of days. HPAI is a threat to the poultry industry, animal health, human health, trade, and the economy worldwide. In the United States, HPAI H5N1 has been detected in dairy cattle. As of August 23, 2024, USDA has confirmed 192 HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus detections in cattle in 13 States (Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming). APHIS has also confirmed, based on specific phylogenetic evidence and epidemiological information, that 48 poultry premises have also been infected with the same HPAI H5N1 virus genotype detected in dairy cattle.
The USDA has already recognized HPAI as a threat, and APHIS already prohibits the interstate movement of animals infected with HPAI. (See 9 CFR 71.3(b).) However, this new, distinct HPAI H5N1 virus genotype poses a new animal disease risk as it can infect both cattle and poultry. The phylogenetic and epidemiological data indicate spread between dairy premises, and concerningly, given the far more severe effects of the disease in poultry, from dairy premises to poultry premises. The virus is shed in milk at high concentrations. Anything that encounters unpasteurized milk, such as spilled milk, or milk residue, has the potential to spread the virus to humans or other animals, and can contaminate vehicles and other objects or materials. Spread has occurred via not only directly spilled milk but also from contaminated objects. These factors indicate this outbreak is having an immediate and sizeable economic impact that could linger.
On April 24, 2024, APHIS announced a Federal Order
Along with the Federal Order, APHIS announced that it is reimbursing the National Animal Health Laboratory Network for all pre-movement and other testing (asymptomatic herd testing and testing of suspect animals), as well as providing confirmatory testing at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. APHIS is also working to strengthen ongoing herd surveillance through the HPAI Dairy Herd Status Program, which will use bulk milk testing.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the control and/or eradication of HPAI in dairy cattle, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, use, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other technologies.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of availability for public comment, correction.
The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Agency), published a document in the
In the
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes-Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland within Crook, Deschutes, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Lake, Klamath, and Wheeler counties consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person meeting and virtual meeting will be held on September 12, 2024, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) and September 13, 2024, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time).
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person at the Deschutes National Forest Supervisor's Office, located at 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701. The public may also join virtually via teleconference. Committee information and details about accessing the meeting virtually can found on the advisory committee website at
Kevin Larkin, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 541-389-5109 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Elect a chairperson;
2. Approve the committee administrative overhead rates.
3. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
4. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
5. Approve meeting minutes; and
6. Schedule the next meeting; and
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. To be scheduled on the agenda, individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
BTOS uses ongoing data collection to produce high frequency, timely, and granular information about current economic conditions and trends. BTOS is the only biweekly business tendency survey produced by the Federal statistical system, providing unique and detailed data during times of economic or other emergencies. The BTOS target population is all nonfarm employer businesses with receipts of $1,000 or more in the United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The current sample consists of approximately 1.2 million businesses split into six panels. Data collection occurs every two weeks, and businesses in each panel are asked to report once every 12 weeks for one year. Current BTOS data are representative of all employer businesses (excluding farms) in the U.S. economy and are published every two weeks. The data are available at the national and State levels, in addition to the 25 most-populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sector, subsector, and State by sector are also published, as are employment size class, and sector by employment size class data, according to the same timeline.
Data from BTOS are currently used to provide timely data to understand the economic conditions being experienced by businesses; BTOS provides near real time data on key items such as revenue, paid employees, hours worked as well as inventories which was being added in for the second sample collection year. A new sample collection is conducted each year.
BTOS also provides high level information on the changing share of businesses facing difficulties stemming from supply chain issues, interest rate changes, or weather events. Previously, there had been few data sources available to policymakers, media outlets, and academia that delivered near real-time insights into economic trends and outlooks. BTOS data has been used by the Small Business Administration to evaluate the impact of regulatory changes. The use of the BTOS data (or additional requirements) is still being determined by the Economic Development Agency (EDA) to understand the impact of natural disasters on U.S. businesses. The EDA will then guide the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or policymakers in assisting in economic recovery support missions.
In the approved OMB package for BTOS, the Census Bureau proposed an incremental path to reach the full scope of BTOS. The first scope expansion proposed adding multi-unit businesses (those with more than one location or establishment) to BTOS. BTOS was limited in scope to include only single-unit businesses. Despite comprising a relatively small share of the total number of businesses, multi-unit (MU) businesses are responsible for most of the employment, payroll, and revenue/sales in the United States and contribute disproportionately to economic activity. In addition, MU businesses are on average larger than single-unit businesses. Adding these businesses helped ensure BTOS results are representative of the full economy. The Census Bureau still proposes an incremental path to the final scope of BTOS to learn at each implemented stage and to allow for modifications based on lessons learned or internal/external stakeholder feedback in prior iterations.
For the first year of BTOS, the content remained unchanged at 26 questions. For the second year, the Census Bureau moved to a set of core questions and supplemental content. Core content includes measures of economic activity that are broadly applicable across non-farm sectors and are important across the business cycle and during economic or other emergencies. Core content is also complementary to key items found on other Economic surveys, such as revenues, employees, hours, and inventories. Core items may also include concepts that may become core topics, such as the artificial intelligence questions that started in the second year.
Supplemental content is added to the BTOS instrument as needed and on a periodic basis. It will be designed to provide urgently needed data on an emerging or current issue. The supplement will include a set of questions that perform a deeper dive into a focused topic that requires timely data. On average, the Census Bureau estimates the supplemental questions will impose an additional 10 minutes of burden.
Consideration for core and supplemental concepts will be based on data consistency, how the questions performed on the current BTOS, the results of cognitive testing, stakeholder feedback, and the ability to collect complementary items on monthly, quarterly, annual, or census programs to provide context and benchmarking.
For future changes, the Census Bureau will submit a request to OMB including 30 days of public comment announced in the
The Census Bureau is requesting the addition of a new question to the core set. This question expands on an existing core question that currently asks whether the business experienced any monetary issues due to an extreme weather event. The new question will ask about the type of extreme weather event, offering thirteen different options plus a write-in choice. This new question will only be asked if the response to the previous question indicates that monetary issues were experienced. The addition of this question aims to enhance our understanding of how various weather-related events impact business operations, including identifying specific weather disruptions and associated financial losses. This change was requested by the Small Business Administration.
In 2024, the second supplemental questionnaire will address work-from-home (WFH) from the business perspective. Similar to the 2023 BTOS core questions on artificial intelligence (AI), a core WFH question will be included in all cycles. This core question will be a yes/no format designed to capture potential seasonal variations in WFH at the business level. Establishing this baseline is crucial for understanding seasonal patterns, as preliminary cognitive testing indicated that seasonality could significantly affect certain industries.
The Coronavirus pandemic emphasized the importance of remote work for economic continuity. Post-pandemic, work from home (WFH) remains significant in many workplaces but its extent at businesses and businesses' plans for the future of remote work are not measured in a timely fashion. Currently, WFH data from a worker perspective is available through 2024 via the Current Population Survey (CPS), but business-level data is only available through 2022 from the Business Response Survey (BRS), which is currently on hiatus. Results from the Annual Business Survey through 2022 will be released in fall 2024. Timely measures of WFH from the business perspective will be valuable to policymakers at all levels due to its potential impact on housing markets, commercial real estate, and urban planning.
For sample year 3, we propose changes to the content as detailed in Attachments A and B of the Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted to OMB for review. Attachment A outlines the core questions for cycles 2 through 4 and includes the core plus supplemental content for cycle 2. Based on cognitive testing results, the burden estimate for the core questions has increased from approximately 9 minutes to 10 minutes. The WFH supplement is estimated to add an additional 10 minutes of burden to the core questions.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
On April 26, 2024, Patheon API Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 21J, in Florence, South Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On April 26, 2024, PPC Broadband, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 90C, in East Syracuse, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice of inquiry; request for comments.
The National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, co-chaired by the Departments of
To be considered, written comments must be received by September 30, 2024.
Comments on this rule may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal (
All filers using the portal should use the name of the person or entity submitting the comments as the name of their files, in accordance with the instructions below. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission.
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The corresponding non-confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked “PUBLIC.” The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P.” Any submissions with file names that do not begin with either a “BC” or a “P” will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly available through
Tosca Fischer, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-3528, (Attn: Tosca Fischer), email:
The federal government operates several different stockpiles that are managed by different federal agencies depending on the stockpile's purpose. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) manages the Strategic National Stockpile, which contains medicines and medical equipment. HHS' stockpile may supplement medical countermeasures needed by states, tribal nations, territories, and the largest metropolitan areas during public health emergencies. Another example is the Department of Energy's operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for use in the event the international oil market is severely disrupted.
The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains a stockpile of critical and strategic materials known as the National Defense Stockpile (NDS). During a war or national emergency, this stockpile is meant to provide strategic and critical materials to support national defense and essential civilian requirements. The stockpile currently contains 61 materials (primarily minerals) that are deemed strategic and critical to national security.
Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Revision Act of 1979, as amended (the Stock Piling Act) (50 U.S.C. 98
Congress authorizes the sale of excess materials from the stockpile, and proceeds from the sales are transferred to the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. The NDS does not receive annual appropriations in the defense budget for operational expenses. Instead, the stockpile has a revolving fund in what the U.S. Treasury termed the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
Section 3314 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (FY 1993 NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h-1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile . . .” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the U.S. Government against avoidable loss.
The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the types of materials stored in the stockpile as the National Defense Stockpile Manager. The DLA must produce an Annual Materials Plan (AMP) proposing the maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, converted, recovered, or sold by the DLA in a particular fiscal year. With this notice, Commerce, on behalf of the DLA, lists the quantities and types of activity—potential disposals, potential acquisitions, potential conversions (upgrade, rotation, reprocessing, etc.) or potential recovery (from government sources) —associated with each material in its proposed FY 2026 AMP.
The quantities listed in Attachment 1 are not acquisition, disposal, upgrade, conversion, recovery, reprocessing, or sales target quantities, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, converted, recovered, or sold in a particular fiscal year by the DLA. The quantity of each material that will actually be acquired or offered for sale will depend on the market for the material at the time of the acquisition or offering, as well as on the quantity of
The Committee is interested in any supporting data and documentation on the potential market impact of the quantities associated with the proposed FY 2026 AMP.
While
Submitted materials properly marked as business confidential information with a valid statutory basis for confidentiality, and which is accepted as such by BIS, will not be publicly disclosed. Commenters submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, include a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed with the submission, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission which will be placed in the public file on
Public comments will be available on regulations.gov, and the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) website at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on truck and bus tires from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and net countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.
Applicable August 21, 2024.
Mary Kolberg or Suresh Maniam, 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) 482-1785 or (202) 482-1603, respectively.
On February 15, 2019, Commerce published in the
On August 21, 2024, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Truck and bus tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a truck or bus size designation. Truck and bus tires covered by the
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have one of the following suffixes in their tire size designation, which also appear on the sidewall of the tire:
All tires with a “TR” or “HC” suffix in their size designations are covered by the
In addition, all tires that lack one of the above suffix markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the “Truck-Bus” section of the
Truck and bus tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes truck and bus tires produced in the subject country whether mounted on wheels or rims in the subject country or in a third country. Truck and bus tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts,
Specifically excluded from the scope of the
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1015 and 4011.20.5020. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.69.0020, 4011.69.0090, 4011.70.00, 4011.90.80, 4011.99.4520, 4011.99.4590, 4011.99.8520, 4011.99.8590, 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, and 8716.90.5059.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Also, excluded from the scope of the
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Dr. Juan J. Agar, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149, 305-361-4218,
This is a request for a new collection of information. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to conduct a survey of catch share participants in the southeast region. This data collection applies to the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions. The proposed socio-economic study will examine the performance of these programs. The survey will collect information on demographics, factors influencing market transparency and efficiency, changes in fishing and marketing practices following the adoption of catch share programs, and miscellaneous attitudinal questions. The data gathered will be used for required, periodic evaluations of these programs and the development of amendments to fishery management plans, which require descriptions of the human and economic environment and socio-economic analyses of regulatory proposals. Additionally, the information collected will be used to strengthen fishery management decision-making and satisfy various legal mandates under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
In-person, online, and phone interviews will be used to collect the above-described information.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of public comment.
On behalf of the Ocean Science and Technology Subcommittee of the Ocean Policy Committee co-chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the National Ocean Mapping, Exploration, and Characterization (NOMEC) Council and the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Exploration and Characterization (IWG-OEC) request public input from all interested parties on the development of the “Strategic Priorities for Ocean Exploration and Characterization in the Pacific Islands within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone and Outer Continental Shelf” (Pacific Islands Priorities Report). The public input provided in response to this notice will inform the IWG-OEC and federal subject matter experts in identifying strategic priorities and data needs for ocean exploration and characterization in the U.S. Pacific Islands (State of Hawai’i and the U.S. Pacific Territories and Possessions) as they develop the Pacific Islands Priorities Report and ensure that this report is informed by and responsive to all sectors through sustained engagement and effective partnerships.
Comments must be received by November 4, 2024.
Responses should be submitted via email to
Responses to this notice may be posted without change on a Federal website. All personal identifying information (
A copy of the previous
A copy of the
A copy of the NOMEC National Strategy may be downloaded or viewed at:
A copy of the current NOMEC Implementation Plan may be downloaded or viewed at:
IWG-OEC Co-chairs: Rachel Medley, NOAA,
The NOMEC Council and IWG-OEC issue this notice on behalf of the Ocean Science and Technology Subcommittee of the Ocean Policy Committee co-chaired by the OSTP and the CEQ and in coordination with the Administrator of NOAA. Public input in response to this notice will inform development of the Pacific Islands Priorities Report, which aims to expand on the prior national-scale U.S. interagency
The IWG-OEC sees value in re-initiating the ad hoc thematic federal working groups and seeking public comments to further refine thematic priorities and data needs specific to the Pacific Islands (State of Hawai'i and the U.S. Pacific Territories and Possessions) within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) since there have been changes to relevant federal statutes and an expansion of federal interests in Western and Central Pacific Islands and Nations following the compilation and release of the prior Priorities Report. Additionally, a new federally led regional campaign, “Beyond the Blue: Illuminating the Pacific,” was recently launched. This new prioritization exercise builds upon the prior Priorities Report and supports the objectives of the Beyond the Blue campaign, the NOMEC Strategy and other national strategies.
This notice solicits comments from Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and stakeholders, including academia, private industry, and other relevant institutions, to inform the development and finalization of the Pacific Islands Priorities Report. Specifically, the IWG-OEC is looking for information addressing the following aspects relevant to ocean exploration and characterization within the Pacific Islands (State of Hawai'i and the U.S. Pacific Territories and Possessions). The IWG-OEC will consider relevant priorities and data needs outside U.S. waters if the connection and relevance to U.S. federal interests is explicitly made.
• Provide a description of high-priority interests, disciplines, topics, and/or themes in the region.
• What types of additional data need to be acquired related to these priorities?
• What types of data standards, protocols, and best
• practices are best suited for data collection related to these priorities?
• What types of products or analyses need to be produced related to these priorities?
• Can you provide information about data sovereignty best practices and principles that can enhance the incorporation of cultural and indigenous knowledge?
• What challenges exist when gathering or accessing data? Can you propose specific solutions to these challenges?
• What technologies or methods (
• What specific technology gaps or limitations need to be developed or improved to better advance data collection, planning, and processing techniques?
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of initiation; request for information.
The NMFS announces the initiation of a 5-year review for the Indus River dolphin (
To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than October 28, 2024.
You may submit information on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2024-0097, by the following method:
•
Kristen Koyama (301) 427-8456 or
This notice announces our review of the Indus River dolphin (
Background information on the species is available on the NMFS website at:
To ensure that the review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the Indus River dolphin (
If you wish to provide information for the review, you may submit your information and materials electronically (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Dan Engelhaupt, Ph.D., HDR, 4173 Ewell Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals.
Written comments must be received on or before September 30, 2024.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., or Courtney Smith, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a 5-year permit to conduct research in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans including the Gulf of Mexico. The objectives are to study presence, movement patterns, behaviors, and population structure for marine mammals occupying waters shared with the U.S. Navy activities and
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) has determined that certain 100% man-made fiber high pile fleece fabric (the “subject product”), as specified below, is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The subject product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR in unrestricted quantities.
Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2043 or
The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamation 7987, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Pursuant to this authority, on September 15, 2008, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to the CAFTA-DR (
On June 25, 2024, CITA received a commercial availability request (“Request”) from VF Corp. (“VF”) for certain 100% man-made fiber high pile fleece fabric, as specified below. On June 27, 2024, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request, which was posted on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”) must be submitted by July 10, 2024, and any Rebuttal to a Response (“Rebuttal”) must be submitted by July 16, 2024, in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of CITA's procedures.
Based on a request from an interested entity, and in accordance with Section 6(a) of CITA's procedures, CITA extended the Response deadline by two business days, through July 12, 2024. Correspondingly, the Rebuttal deadline was extended by two business days, through July 18, 2024.
On July 10, 2024, Draper Knitting Company, Inc. (“Draper”) submitted a Response to the pending Request. On July 18, 2024, VF submitted a Rebuttal to Draper's Response.
In accordance with Section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, Article 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR, and section 8(c)(4) of CITA's procedures, because there was insufficient information on the record to make a determination within 30 business days regarding the ability of a CAFTA-DR supplier to supply the subject product based on the submitted information, CITA extended the period to make a determination by 14 U.S. business days. Further, in accordance with section 8(c)(4)(i) of its procedures, CITA called for a public meeting on August 5, 2024
Section 203(o)(4)(C)(ii) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides that after receiving a request, a determination will be made as to whether the subject product, or one substitutable, is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. In the instant case, the information on the record indicates that VF made significant efforts to source the subject product, a warp knit fleece fabric, in the CAFTA-DR region. Draper offered to supply a circular weft knit sliver pile fabric, which it argued is substitutable for the subject product. CITA finds that the information on the record does not support Draper's claim that the fabric it offered to supply is, in fact, substitutable for the subject product. Therefore, in accordance with Section 203(o) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act and CITA's procedures, as no interested entity has substantiated its ability to supply the subject product or one substitutable in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA has determined to add the subject product to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR.
The subject product has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings, at
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a new matching program.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990 (Privacy Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, notice is hereby given of the re-establishment of a matching program between the U.S. Department of Education (Department), as the recipient agency, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS-USCIS), as the source agency, to verify the immigration status of noncitizen applicants for, or recipients of, financial assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
Submit your comments on the proposed re-establishment of the matching program on or before September 30, 2024.
The matching program will go into effect on the later of the following three dates: (1) October 21, 2024; (2) at the expiration of the 60-day period following the Department's transmittal of a report concerning the matching program to OMB and to the appropriate Congressional Committees, along with a copy of the Computer Matching Agreement, unless OMB waives any of this 60-day review period for compelling reasons, in which case, 60 days minus the number of days waived by OMB from the date of the Department's transmittal of the report of the matching program; or (3) at the expiration of the 30-day public comment period following the Department's publication of notice of this matching program in the
The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date of the matching program and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if the respective Data Integrity Boards (DIBs) of the Department and DHS-USCIS determine that the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
Patrick Fox, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. Telephone: (202) 718-6885. 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.
In accordance with the Privacy Act; OMB
The Department and DHS-USCIS.
The Department seeks access to the information accessed by SAVE through the DHS-USCIS Verification Information System (VIS) for the purpose of verifying the immigration status of applicants for assistance, as authorized by section 484(g) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1091(g), consistent with the requirements of section 484(a)(5) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5). The Department is authorized to participate in the matching program, which is the subject of this CMA, under the authority of section 484(g)(3) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1091(g)(3), and 20 U.S.C. 3475. DHS-USCIS is authorized to participate in this matching program under section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law 82-414, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1103, Section 121(c)(1), Part C, of the Immigration Reform and the Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99-603, 42 U.S.C. 1320b-7 note, and section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1373(c).
The purpose of this matching program is to permit the Department to confirm the immigration status of noncitizen applicants for, or recipients of, financial assistance under title IV of the HEA, as authorized by section 484(g) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1091(g)). The title IV, HEA programs that are covered by the matching program include: the Federal Pell Grant Program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program, the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Work-Study Program, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.
The individuals included in this matching program are applicants for, or recipients of, title IV, HEA program assistance who provide an Alien Registration Number (ARN) (also referred to as A-number or USCIS number) when completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and have indicated that they are an “eligible noncitizen” to determine their eligibility for title IV, HEA program assistance.
The Department will disclose to DHS-USCIS the ARN, first and last name, and date of birth of each applicant for, or recipient of, financial assistance under title IV of the HEA who indicates that they are an “eligible noncitizen” and have provided their ARN in their application for financial assistance under title IV of the HEA. DHS-USCIS will disclose to the Department the eligible noncitizen applicant's first and last name, date of birth, A-number (or ARN or USCIS number), Verification Case Number, and Eligibility Statement Codes, if any.
The Department will disclose records to DHS-USCIS from its systems of records identified as “Aid Awareness and Application Processing” (AAAP) (18-11-21), which was last published in the
DHS-USCIS will disclose records back to the Department from its systems of records identified as the “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)-0004 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program System of Records”, which was last published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Science, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of an open virtual meeting.
This notice announces an open virtual meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, September 30, 2024; 10 a.m.-5 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held virtually via Zoom. Instructions for Zoom, as well as any updates to meeting times or meeting agenda, can be found on the FESAC meeting website at:
Dr. Samuel J. Barish, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES); U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Science; 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-2917, email address:
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 25, 2024; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. EDT; Thursday, September 26, 2024; 8:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. EDT.
Double Tree Hotel, 215 S Illinois Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN 37830. This hybrid meeting will be in-person at the Double Tree Hotel and virtually available via Zoom. Virtual attendees can Register for the meeting on September 25, 2024, by visiting
Kelly Snyder, EM SSAB Designated Federal Officer. Telephone: (702) 918-6715; Email:
Minutes will be available at the following website:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for information (RFI).
The EPA invites public comment on the potential for expanded use of advanced and emerging technologies for methane emissions quantification in EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). These technologies are an important part of EPA's GHGRP, including under the recently finalized amendments for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. EPA intends to use the feedback received in response to this RFI to consider whether it is appropriate to undertake further rulemaking addressing the use of advanced measurement technologies in the GHGRP for petroleum and natural gas systems and municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, beyond the current role provided in existing rules for these technologies.
Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0350, to the Federal Portal:
Vasco Roma, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Protection, Climate Change Division; telephone number: 202-564-1662; email address:
Technologies with the ability to detect and measure atmospheric methane have been advancing significantly over the last few decades. These technologies are an important part of EPA programs, including the recently finalized 40 CFR part 98 Subpart W (Subpart W) amendments, which allow for the use of advanced measurement technologies to help quantify methane emissions from Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems sources, such as emissions from other large release events and flares under the GHGRP.
Following requests for comment in the notice of the 2023 proposed rulemaking for Subpart W,
As EPA acknowledged in the final Subpart W rule, advanced measurement technologies are developing rapidly and are particularly well-suited for detecting and quantifying large and discrete emissions events, such as other large release events. Based on EPA's assessment of the strengths and limitations of advanced measurement technologies at the time of finalizing the Subpart W rule, however, EPA limited the use of these technologies in annual GHG reporting to certain specific roles identified in the final rule.
EPA has also sought comment on how methane monitoring technologies might enhance emission estimates for other industrial sectors covered under the GHGRP, specifically for MSW landfills under 40 CFR part 98 Subpart HH (Subpart HH). In a May 2023 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA requested examples of methane data collected from available monitoring methodologies and how such data might be incorporated into quantifying annual emissions.
Based on these reviews, EPA recognizes that advanced measurement technologies, and their use for annual quantification of methane emissions, are evolving rapidly. EPA is committed to transparent and continual improvements to its programs to ensure reporting is accurate and complete. There are four key considerations associated with expanding the use of advanced measurement technologies to quantify annual methane emissions
(1) How to translate the measurement data provided by different types of advanced measurement technologies (
(2) How to extrapolate methane emissions from discrete and intermittent observations into total methane emissions throughout the year (with a specific level of accuracy) and attribute these emissions to a specific equipment type, process, or facility.
(3) How to identify, attribute, and quantify methane emission events that are below a technology's detection limit, in order to estimate total equipment-, process-, or facility-level emissions throughout the year.
(4) How to set detection, quantification, attribution, verification, and uncertainty criteria and/or protocols for different types of advanced measurement technologies to ensure implementation into the GHGRP in a manner that is applicable to different infrastructures and environmental conditions across the U.S. (
As technologies continue to rapidly advance to meet these needs, EPA is issuing this RFI to the public to obtain information about currently available advanced and emerging methane measurement technologies, and how these technologies could be used to quantify annual methane emissions from the oil and gas and MSW landfill industry segments at the equipment-, process-, or facility-level for GHGRP reporting purposes. The following questions are aimed to address the key considerations outlined above and have been organized into the following categories: quantification, attribution, and implementation.
EPA believes that standards or protocols could help ensure the use of advanced measurement technologies to quantify annual methane emissions is implemented in a transparent and standardized manner. Furthermore, EPA anticipates that annual quantification approaches may be specific to an emission source, facility type, or type of technology. Therefore, a potential standard or protocol might be specific to a type of methane source (
EPA is requesting information on issues related to the quantification of methane emissions using currently available advanced measurement technologies, including: (1) detection and quantification of methane emission rates; (2) approaches for extrapolating observation-based methane emission rates to estimate annual total emissions; and (3) approaches for quantifying annual total methane emissions for sources that emit at rates below technology minimum detection thresholds. Detailed questions on each topic are listed below. Please provide detailed answers and citations to relevant resources.
Advanced technologies for methane detection, such as instruments deployed on satellite, aircraft, or in the form of continuous monitors, can be used to detect methane emissions. These technologies do not directly quantify methane emission rates but require additional analytical tools and methods to transform the raw sensor measurements (
i. What advanced measurement technologies are currently available that can provide quantified methane emission rates using transparent, open-source, and standardized methodologies? What are the specific quantification approaches that have been used with these technologies, and how have these methodologies been demonstrated and validated? How can these technologies and quantification methodologies be used to provide annual data in a consistent manner for each future year of GHGRP reporting? Are there specific detection and quantification approaches or methodologies that EPA should or should not consider?
ii. What performance metrics and threshold(s) related to quantification would be appropriate to apply to advanced measurement technologies for their incorporation into the GHGRP? For example, should EPA consider: thresholds for the methane detection limit (
iii. Should quantification approaches be limited to the use of specific methodologies (
iv. Are there ongoing efforts outside of EPA to develop standards or protocols for methane emissions detection and quantification from advanced measurement technologies that would address any of the questions raised in this RFI? If so, please specify which efforts and which question(s) can/will be answered and when these standards or protocols will be publicly available.
Different advanced measurement technologies provide data at different sampling frequencies (
i. What advanced measurement technologies are currently available that can provide annual total methane emission estimates for specific regions, facilities, processes, or equipment-level sources, that use transparent, open-source, and standardized methods? Are these technologies applicable across the entire U.S. and could they provide annual data in a consistent manner for each future year of GHGRP reporting? Are there specific annual extrapolation approaches or methodologies that EPA should or should not consider?
ii. What accuracy or uncertainty metrics would be appropriate for GHGRP reporting purposes? For example, what level of accuracy in reported annual methane emissions should advanced measurement technologies be required to meet? What sources of uncertainty are necessary to consider? Are there other specific quality assurance or quality control markers that should be considered to ensure that annual estimates represent the methane emissions from all operational activities throughout the reporting year, such as specific measurement frequencies or duration? What would be a feasible approach for developing these thresholds and metrics?
iii. To what extent should standards and protocols be specific to the type of methods and ancillary data used (
Different advanced measurement technologies also have different detection thresholds (
i. What methodologies are currently available for integrating estimates of methane emissions for those sources emitting below technology detection thresholds in an open-source, transparent, and standardized way? Can these methodologies provide annual data in a consistent manner for each future year of GHGRP reporting? Are there specific approaches or methodologies that EPA should or should not consider?
ii. Should these quantification approaches be limited to the use of specific methodologies (
EPA is requesting comment and information regarding attribution of quantified methane emissions (from discrete events or annual totals) to specific GHGRP facilities, sites, or sources.
In addition to differences in temporal resolution, advanced measurement technologies have spatial resolutions that can range from kilometers (
a. What methodologies are currently available that can attribute quantified methane emission events to specific equipment types (or additionally, specific regions, facilities, or processes) using transparent, open-source, and standardized methods? Are there specific attribution approaches or methodologies that EPA should or should not consider?
b. What accuracy or uncertainty metrics would be appropriate for GHGRP reporting purposes? For example, what level of confidence in the source attribution would be necessary for advanced measurement technologies to meet for GHGRP reporting purposes? What would be a feasible approach for developing these thresholds?
c. To what extent would standards and protocols need to be specific to the type of methods and ancillary data used (
EPA is requesting comment and information on issues related to the implementation of advanced measurement technologies into the GHGRP.
Implementation considerations include the need for quantifying annual total methane emissions from oil and gas and MSW landfill applicable sources across the U.S. in a transparent and standardized way, validation and verification of the reported data, and additional potential uses of advanced measurement technologies for the GHGRP. EPA also requests information on additional data that could be reported for the verification of methane emissions estimates produced using advanced measurement technologies.
i. What form would standard method(s) or protocol(s) need to take to ensure that advanced measurement technologies provide annual total, source-specific, methane emissions in a transparent and standardized way? For example,
(1) To what extent should standards and protocols be specific to the type of methods used (
(2) To what extent could standard method(s) be developed to be source agnostic? For example, would standards need to be specific to the type of equipment, process, or emission source sampled (
i. Are there approaches currently available that could be used to verify that advanced measurement technologies meet specific standards (
ii. Is it necessary to limit the applicability of advanced measurement technologies to environmental and site conditions that have been previously validated? For example, if an advanced measurement technology has been validated through blind control release testing during which wind speeds ranged from 0.5 to 10 m/s, should the technology be limited to measurements within this range of wind speeds? What form of validation could be used to demonstrate whether a technology is applicable across environmental conditions outside of their tested ranges?
iii. Are there specific types of operator- or facility-specific information that would be useful for improving or validating annual methane emissions quantification or source attribution from advanced measurement technologies?
i. What (if any) are the current barriers or limitations to using advanced measurement technologies beyond what is currently allowed under the GHGRP to quantify annual equipment-level methane emissions at scale in the U.S.?
ii. What are the cost considerations for implementing different advanced measurement technologies to quantify annual, equipment-, process-, or facility-level methane emissions for GHGRP reporting purposes? If available, costs should be provided in a manner that can be scaled up to different implementation approaches (
iii. How are factors such as measurement and analysis cost, complexity, or time burden relevant for determining whether advanced measurement technologies may be appropriate for annual GHGRP application?
iv. Other than methane emissions detection and quantification, and establishing the duration of emission events as permitted under Subpart W for Other Large Release Events, are there additional ways in which advanced measurement technologies could be used to support quantification and reporting of equipment-, process-, or facility-level methane emissions to the GHGRP (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by the DCPA registrant to voluntarily cancel DCPA pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will not be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0374, online at
James Douglass, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-566-2343; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from the DCPA registrant to cancel 3 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or section 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the DCPA registrant of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
FIFRA section 6(f)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period; or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrant in Table 2 of Unit II. has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
If the registrant decides to withdraw a request for cancellation, it should submit such withdrawal request in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates prohibiting registrants and persons other than registrants to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of these products effective the date of that the cancellation notice is published in the
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of meeting postponement.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is postponing the Advisory Committee on Affordable, Equitable, and Sustainable Housing (Committee) meeting originally scheduled for September 10 and 11, 2024. Future meeting dates will be announced in the
Paul Theruviparampil, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Housing & Community Investment, Division of Housing Mission and Goals, (202) 649-3982,
The Committee meeting was originally announced in the
Members of the public who wish to provide comments or obtain information
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
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 September 30, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of publication of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority 2025 proposed budget; request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission publishes the 2025 proposed budget of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and seeks public comment on whether the Commission should approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed budget.
Comments must be filed on or before September 12, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
Sarah Botha (202-326-2036), Attorney Advisor and Acting HISA Program Manager, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act,
After the Authority submits its proposed budget and supporting materials to the Commission, and if the Secretary determines the submission comports with the requirements of the 16 CFR 1.150(c), the Secretary publishes the Authority's proposed budget in the
On July 31, 2024, the Authority forwarded to the Commission a Notice of Filing of HISA Budget, together with appendices furnishing detailed information pertinent to its 2025 budget proposal (as required by 16 CFR 1.150(c)). The Notice of Filing of HISA
The Secretary concluded that the Authority's proposed 2025 budget submission complies with the requirements of 16 CFR 1.150(c), and therefore issues this document and invites comments from the public on the Authority's 2025 budget. Comments should address the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c) and whether any line items should be modified.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 12, 2024. Write “HISA 2025 Budget, Matter No. P222100” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “HISA 2025 Budget, Matter No. P222100” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex H), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the
The text that follows is the Notice of Filing of HISA Budget that the Authority submitted to the Commission. The appendices to which it refers have been collected and reproduced as a supporting document on the docket for this publication at
Pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020
I.
II.
III.
• 2025 Assessments by State (attached as Appendix 8).
• 2025 Assessments by Track (attached as Appendix 9).
Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 display the estimated amount required from each State Racing Commission as calculated under the Assessment Methodology Rule.
The 2025 HISA Budget includes the following revenue line items:
• Racetrack Safety Fines Income—this consists of fines levied for violations of the Racetrack Safety Program.
• ADMC Fines Income—this consists of fines paid for violations of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program.
• Lab Test Income—this consists of the money paid to HISA to cover the cost of B Sample testing, claimed horse testing, and clearance testing.
• Interest Income—This consists of interest income from HISA's Money Market Savings account.
• Other Revenue—this consists of payments made by certain racetracks to reimburse HISA for paying for the cost of Racetrack Safety Program compliance (there is an offsetting expense).
Please note that no loans are contemplated to be procured by HISA in 2025.
IV.
• Rule 1.150(c)(3)(i): Racetrack Safety Program. These expenditures consist primarily of salaries for staff to monitor and implement the Racetrack Safety Program, racetrack surface testing, and vendors and contract employees that support the Racetrack Safety Program.
• Rule 1.150(c)(3)(ii): Anti-Doping and Medication Control. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3054(e), the Authority contracted with the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (“HIWU”) to serve as the independent anti-doping and medication control enforcement organization for covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces. HIWU implements the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program on behalf of the Authority. Expenditures related to this Program include HIWU costs, lab testing, and professional services. Additionally, 15 U.S.C. 3055(e) provides that the Authority “shall convene an advisory committee . . . to conduct a study on the use of furosemide on horses during the 48-hour period before the start of a race, including the effect of furosemide on equine health and the integrity of competition and any other matter the Authority considers appropriate.” The costs of this study are included in the Anti-Doping and Medication Control portion of the proposed 2025 budget.
• Rule 1.150(c)(3)(iii): Other programmatic expenses. These expenditures consist primarily of salaries, professional services, and technology to support the Authority's veterinary and technological needs. Additional programmatic expenditures relate to the business and operational components of the Authority and include expenses such as salaries, legal (lawsuits and general), and professional services.
• Rule 1.150(c)(3)(iv): Repayment of any loans. This expenditure consists of $250,000 in repayment of loans.
• Rule 1.150(c)(3)(v): No funding shortfall is expected.
V.
The proposed 2025 HISA Summary budget (Appendix 1) is a compilation of the following departmental budgets: Racetrack Safety (Appendix 2); Veterinary Services (Appendix 3); Anti-Doping and Medication Control (Appendix 4); HIWU (Appendix 5); Technology (Appendix 6); and Administration (Appendix 7). A summary of these departmental budgets is set forth below:
1. The 2025 Racetrack Safety budget funds the implementation of the Racetrack Safety Program as set forth in Rule Series 2000 and as originally approved by order of the Commission dated March 3, 2022.
a. Salaries/Payroll Taxes/Employee Benefits. The salaries provide for staffing to support and monitor the Racetrack Safety program, including those persons necessary to oversee the following components of the program:
i. Administration
ii. Track Accreditation Services
iii. Stewards' & State Racing Commission Liaison
iv. Jockey Health & Welfare
Salary levels for each position are based on market rates, while Employee Benefits consist primarily of a HISA contribution to cover a portion of employee health insurance and a 401(k) match that is consistent with market practice. The salaries budget provides for six racetrack safety employees. As of July 31, 2024, the Racetrack Safety Program has six employees. For all employees of the Authority, the Director of Operations and Compliance, an individual who does not have a conflict of interest with regard to the hiring of other open positions, reviews and documents compensation based on industry norms for similar positions prior to setting and to offering other open positions. Where needed, the Director of Operations and Compliance relies upon an outside search agency to help determine compensation for other open positions.
b. Meetings. This includes the travel, meals, and materials to support the following annual meetings:
These meetings are necessary to promote the health and safety of both Covered Horses and Riders.
c. Travel. This category covers the travel and meal expenses for all of the employees previously listed in Salaries (section a) of this department (excluding the travel and meal expenses for the Meetings described in section b. and the Track Accreditation Services travel set forth in section f.). Travel to Covered Racetracks by Authority employees is often necessary to ensure that Covered Horseraces are run in accordance with the standards established in HISA's Racetrack Safety Program.
d. Supplies. This primarily consists of materials to be used in educational and Continuing Education programs provided and overseen by the Racetrack Safety Department. These programs ensure that trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, and stewards are educated in methods and procedures that promote the health and safety of Covered Horses and Riders.
e. Professional Services. Several independent contractors and external service provider companies will partner with HISA on a part-time basis to provide and/or augment services in the following areas:
Pay rates are based on market rates for similar positions. All of these independent contractor relationships will increase the knowledge base and/or education level of participants in Covered Horseraces.
f. Track Accreditation Services. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3056 and the Racetrack Safety rules, the Authority is responsible for implementing an evaluation and accreditation program that ensures that Covered Racetracks meet certain safety and performance standards. Both the Act and the Racetrack Safety rules require that tracks be accredited, and the rules mandate site visits to determine the extent of compliance with the rules. The accreditation visits afford HISA staff the ability to conduct an in-depth and in-person review of a racetrack's operations to determine its level of compliance with the Racetrack Safety Program and to provide training on how best to meet ongoing reporting requirements. This category includes the costs of compensating teams of employees and independent contractors to perform these site visits, and the costs of covering the travel and meal expenses for this team.
g. Racetrack Surface Testing. This category includes the cost of pre-meet track surface testing of tracks that run
2. The 2025 Veterinary Services budget ensures that the veterinary care component of the Racetrack Safety Program is effectively implemented and administered nationally.
a. Salaries/Payroll Taxes/Employee Benefits. This category contemplates four HISA full-time employees that cover the administration of veterinary rules, compliance with those rules, and veterinary medical records. Salary levels for each position are based on market rates, while Employee Benefits consist primarily of a HISA contribution to cover a portion of employee health insurance and a 401(k) match that is consistent with market practice. As of July 31, 2024, the Veterinary Services department has four employees.
b. Meetings. This includes the travel, meals, and materials to support the Equine Safety Directors Meeting. This meeting is necessary to promote the health and safety of both Covered Horses and Riders.
c. Travel. This includes the costs of travel by veterinary employees to racetracks to meet with regulatory veterinarians, attending veterinarians, and other practicing equine veterinarians and their staff. This also includes travel to training seminars and veterinary conferences. Participation by veterinary employees in these meetings and seminars will result in a more effective and efficient program that better meets the needs of HISA's constituents.
d. Supplies. This primarily consists of materials to be used in educational and Continuing Education programs provided and overseen by the Veterinary Services department. These programs ensure that trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, and stewards are educated in methods and procedures that promote the health and safety of Covered Horses and Riders.
e. Professional Services. Several independent contractors will partner with HISA on a part-time basis to provide and/or augment services in areas including veterinary consulting and data entry.
Pay rates are based on market rates for similar positions. All of these independent contractor relationships will increase the knowledge base and/or education level of veterinarians and other participants in Covered Horseraces.
3. The 2025 Anti-Doping and Medication Control budget supports the implementation of the ADMC Protocol. The budget consists of the following items:
a. Travel. This line item covers the travel and meal expenses that are expected to be incurred by HISA personnel to support and achieve the goals of the ADMC Program.
b. Supplies. This line item sets forth the cost of materials utilized by the Authority to support and achieve the goals of the ADMC Program.
c. Professional Services. Independent contractors have partnered with HISA on a part-time basis to provide and/or augment services in the following areas:
i. Arbitration—this covers the fees to be paid to arbitrators who preside over cases involving positive tests for banned substances.
ii. Independent Adjudication Panel (IAP)—this covers the fees paid to members of the IAP, who hear cases involving positive tests for controlled medications.
iii. Furosemide Study—this covers the fees to be paid in 2025 for the furosemide study that is required by the Act.
d. HIWU. As set forth above, the Act requires that HISA contract with an independent enforcement agency to oversee the components of the ADMC Program. HIWU, a division of Drug Free Sport (“DFS”), was retained by the Authority as the independent enforcement agency. The HIWU line items in the ADMC budget consist of the following:
i. Salaries/Payroll Taxes/Employee Benefits. All HIWU employees are employed by DFS. The salaries account for a staff (expected to total 43 full-time individuals) that will carry out all of the responsibilities of the enforcement agency, including those persons necessary to oversee and complete the following components of the program:
HIWU shares 7 staff with DFS in the areas of Information Technology, Finance, and Human Resources. This arrangement produces cost savings, obviating the need for HIWU to retain full-time employees to provide these services.
ii. Rent. HIWU has procured 3,000 sq. ft. of office space for its employees. HIWU is paying $32/sq. ft., which is consistent with market rates in the Kansas City area. The cost of basic office equipment is also included in this category.
iii. Office Expense. This consists of common office expenses such as utilities and maintenance costs and is based on historical costs for similar businesses.
iv. Telecommunications. This consists of the cost of office phones, mobile phone service at $65/month/employee (a commercially reasonable rate), and portable hot-spot wi-fi services to be used in test barns.
v. Travel. This is the travel expense necessary for full-time employees to perform functions such as meetings with State Racing Commissions and track associations, training and continuing education sessions with sample collection personnel, conducting investigations, arbitration hearings, laboratory visits, meetings with HISA personnel, and participation in industry meetings and conventions. Travel expenses include airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars, fuel costs, mileage for personal vehicles used for business purposes, parking, and meals. The amounts for each expense component were based on estimated market average costs.
vi. Supplies. This consists of drug testing supplies needed for sample collections and sample collection personnel training.
vii. Professional Services. This consists largely of consulting fees paid to experts in the areas of:
The guidance provided by these subject matter experts will result in a safer sport run on a more level playing field.
viii. Technology. This consists of the cost of all software, hardware, licenses and continued technological development needed to perform HIWU's work.
ix. Insurance. The expense consists of the cost of all of HIWU's insurance policies, including liability insurance with an Umbrella policy, cyber-risk insurance, property insurance, and workers' compensation insurance.
x. Resources and Education. This includes Training and Continuing
xi. Taxes—Other. Estimated taxes based on historical experience. These taxes are minimal in amount and are commercially reasonable.
xii. ADMC Collection Costs. This includes wages paid to sample collection personnel in all states that conduct Covered Horseraces. The wage amounts were initially based on rates paid to sample collection personnel in each state prior to HIWU assuming these sample collection functions and have been adjusted where necessary to reflect rates currently being paid. Additionally, to cover travel expenses specifically related to sample collection, this includes airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars, fuel costs, mileage for personal vehicles used for business purposes, parking, and meals. The amounts for each expense component were based on estimated market average costs.
xiii. Management Fees. This is the profit amount to HIWU for administering the program. It is a negotiated amount of 8% of the total expenses incurred for services that HIWU provides directly and 4% for everything else.
e. Lab Testing. Once the samples to be tested have been collected by HIWU personnel, they are shipped to one of five accredited laboratories located in the United States. All of the laboratories have many years of experience in the testing of blood, urine, and hair samples taken from thoroughbred racehorses. HIWU has conducted extensive negotiations with each of these laboratories in order to ensure that competent testing is performed at the lowest price possible. One way HIWU has successfully reduced costs is by utilizing only five laboratories to perform testing, instead of the nine laboratories previously used by various State Racing Commissions across the country. This allows the five laboratories to spread their fixed costs (salaried employees, testing equipment, etc.) over a larger number of samples, resulting in a lower charge per test.
It is important to note that the ADMC Collection Costs and Lab Testing line items represent 47.96% of the total budget of the Authority.
4. The 2025 Technology budget supports the building and development of all IT systems needed to properly and efficiently manage the Racetrack Safety and ADMC programs. The budget consists of the following items:
a. Salaries/Payroll Taxes/Employee Benefits. This contemplates nine HISA full-time employees in areas including programming, field support, internal support, external support, project administration, and third-party developer coordination. Salary levels for each position are based on market rates, while Employee Benefits consist primarily of a HISA contribution to cover a portion of employee health insurance and a 401(k) match that is consistent with market practice. As of July 31, 2024, the Technology department has seven employees.
b. Travel. This includes the costs of travel by IT employees to racetracks to meet with customers/users, to Lexington, Kentucky and Montclair, New Jersey for HISA meetings, and to training seminars and technology summit meetings. Participation by IT employees in these meetings and seminars will result in a more efficient program that better meets the needs of the constituents and will ensure alignment between the functionality of the system and the published regulations.
c. Supplies. This includes the purchase of laptops for all HISA employees, the provision of workstations for those employees located in the Lexington office, and the hardware/software/3rd-party services needed for image processing. These items are necessary for HISA to efficiently perform its duties under the Act.
d. Technology. This item includes the costs of cloud computing and other specialized applications that together form the foundation of HISA's technology system. This includes the cost of Palantir, Amazon Web Services, and other vendors relating to the HISA website and technology systems. In order to be as cost-effective as possible, HISA has chosen not to invest in centralized computing assets. This keeps total cost of ownership low and infrastructure stability high, and it enables solution flexibility as HISA is engaged in meeting its mandate.
e. Professional Services. This item budgets for outsourced technology delivery provided by third-party system integrators and software factories. Given the need for cost-effective, round-the-clock services, the necessary software and technology systems were procured internationally from development resources in the US, Europe, and Asia; this allowed for the implementation of a 24-hour code and test development cycle. This is the most cost-effective method of building and maintaining technology systems/portals to facilitate program reporting to and monitoring by HISA.
5. The 2025 Administration budget consists of the general and administrative staff and expenditures that are needed to conduct HISA's business. This budget consists of:
a. Salaries/Payroll Taxes/Employee Benefits. This contemplates 13 employees including executive-level personnel (the CEO and CFO) and employees in Legal, Communications, Operations/Compliance, Public Affairs, and Administrative Services. Salary levels for each position are based on market rates, while Employee Benefits consist primarily of a HISA contribution to cover a portion of employee health insurance and a 401(k) match that is consistent with market practice. As of July 31, 2024, nine employees make up the Administration Department.
b. Board and Committee Travel. This consists of travel, hotel, and meal expenses for the one annual board meeting that is held with in-person attendance by the board members.
c. Rent. In the fall of 2024, HISA anticipates moving its office location to a 1,798 sq. ft. office space in Lexington, Kentucky. HISA expects to pay $18/sq. ft., which is consistent with market rates in the Lexington area. The costs of basic office equipment and furniture are also included in this category.
d. Phones. This is the cost of an office phone system in HISA's corporate office, necessary for HISA to conduct its business.
e. Meetings. This is the cost of miscellaneous meetings of HISA's corporate staff as are necessary for HISA to conduct its business.
f. Travel. This includes airfare, car rental, mileage, and meals for HISA's corporate staff in the course of traveling to Covered Racetracks, industry meetings, HISA meetings (strategic planning summits, board meetings, etc.), and meetings with industry stakeholders. Travel to these events allows HISA's corporate staff to conduct its business more efficiently and to perform its duties under the Act.
g. Membership and Subscriptions. This is the cost of professional membership dues and subscription fees. These memberships allow HISA staff to meet with industry stakeholders and carry out its duties under the Act.
h. Bank and Credit Card Fees. This includes the cost of bank fees and credit card fees. These fees are necessary to efficiently and effectively conduct business.
i. Supplies. This includes the cost of office supplies, including printer/copier paper, printer/copier ink and toner,
j. Postage. This includes the cost of postage and shipping for communications to Covered Persons. While HISA primarily conducts business via electronic communications, U.S. Mail is required where the recipient does not utilize an electronic means of communication.
k. Accounting Services. This consists of the cost of a contract bookkeeping service that books accounting entries, produces financial statements, manages and processes Accounts Receivable, manages and processes Accounts Payable, and drafts/files HISA's annual IRS Form 990. Contracting this work out to a company with expertise in these areas is much more cost-effective than if HISA were to hire staff to perform these functions in-house. Additionally, this includes the cost of an annual independent audit of HISA.
l. Public Relations Services. This is the cost of a contract public relations service to manage HISA's website, issue press releases, assist with the production and distribution of information to industry stakeholders, and provide continuing education information for industry stakeholders. The public relations firm that HISA is working with has many years of expertise in P/R for thoroughbred racing enterprises. The firm can perform the aforementioned tasks more efficiently and effectively than if HISA were to hire staff to perform these tasks in-house.
m. Legal—General and Lawsuits. This includes the cost of outside legal counsel for the creation, management, and updating of Racetrack Safety and ADMC rules as well as the cost of outside counsel that is working on the various lawsuits in which HISA is a party. Additionally, this includes the cost of outside legal counsel that handles enforcement actions brought under the Racetrack Safety Program. Doing all of these tasks requires a decentralized group of lawyers with varied skill sets. At present, it is much more efficient and effective to utilize outside counsel than for HISA to hire a large in-house legal team to handle these issues.
n. Insurance. This includes the following insurance policies for HISA:
i. Directors & Officers insurance.
ii. Workers' Compensation insurance.
All of these policies were competitively shopped by a broker to get the lowest rate possible.
o. Payroll Services. This includes all costs of HISA's relationship with Resource Management, Inc. (RMI), a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). RMI provides Human Resources administration (handbook and policy management resources, new employee onboarding, labor law assistance, etc.), benefits management, compliance services (workers' compensation claims management and annual reporting, unemployment claims management, etc.), and payroll administration (payroll processing, W2 management, vacation tracking, etc.). The relationship with RMI allows these functions to be performed in a more cost-effective manner than if HISA hired employees to perform those functions.
p. Printing and Publication. This includes the cost of printing and publishing various educational and communication materials.
q. Professional Services. This account consists of:
i. Consulting fees to independent contractors assisting HISA with consulting projects and board and executive functions.
ii. $100,000 to fund the preparation of a white paper on the benefits provided by security cameras in shedrows.
iii. $150,000 contingency fund set aside for unexpected expenses.
These items will ensure that HISA has high-quality employees who are well-trained to properly serve its constituents.
Please note that the 2025 HISA budget contemplates the repayment of $250,000 of loans; it does not assume that any funding shortfall will be incurred.
VI.
VII.
The Authority's assessment of Mr. Cohen's comment follows: In future years, the Authority will consider including the Notice with the budget on its website. The lab testing budget and collection costs deceased in large part because the 2024 budget included analysis for Louisiana, West Virginia, and Texas, while the 2025 budget does not. As it relates to the question regarding revenue reduction, this revenue line represents revenue from fines. After reviewing the actual fines collected to date, the Authority believes that the budget should be based on the fines expected to be collected instead of fines levied. The larger fines associated with the ADMC program generally accompany a longer suspension and, in these cases, the covered person is not motivated to pay the fine until the suspension has been served.
The Authority did not make any revisions to the proposed budget in light of the comment.
The proposed budget is consistent with and serves the goals of the Act in a prudent and cost-effective manner. The proposed budget allocates the funding necessary for the successful implementation by HISA of the requirements of the Act. The budget has been carefully analyzed and is narrowly tailored to the various regulatory activities of HISA as contemplated by the Act. As demonstrated herein, the anticipated revenues are sufficient to meet its anticipated expenditures.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite the public to comment on an extension concerning claims and appeals. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Federal Government acquisitions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. OMB has approved this information collection for use through March 31, 2025. DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider all comments received by October 28, 2024.
DoD, GSA, and NASA invite interested persons to submit comments on this collection through
Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or
9000-0035, Claims and Appeals.
This clearance covers the information that contractors must submit to comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements:
If the contractor refuses the Government's offer to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the contractor must inform the contracting officer, in writing, of the contractor's specific reasons for rejecting the offer.
The contracting officer will use the information to decide the disposition of the claim.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services.
General notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces revised plans for data collection fields for reporting of pregnancy success rates from assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs and for data validation procedures. This reporting is required by the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA).
The requirements for the additional data fields and validation requirements will be implemented for reporting year 2025.
Mithi Sunderam, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S107-2, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Telephone: 1-800-232-4636; email:
On November 28, 2023, CDC published a notice in
(i) Remove the requirement for clinics to report dosage information for fertility medications including Clomiphene, Letrozole, and long-acting follicle stimulating hormone (FSH).
(ii) Remove the requirement for clinics to report information on research cycle study type.
(iii) Add the requirement for clinics to report date of cryopreservation for fresh embryos.
(iv) Not to pursue targeted validation of clinics and identification of major data discrepancies.
CDC received seven public comments to the docket. One comment was outside the scope of the docket. Summaries of the six other comments and CDC's responses are provided below.
I. CDC proposal to remove the requirement for clinics to report dosage information for fertility medications, including Clomiphene, Letrozole, other oral medications, and long-acting follicle stimulating hormone: One commenter agreed, two commenters did not comment on this proposed change, and three commenters did not agree to the proposed change. Of those who did not agree, one commenter suggested that CDC should not stop collecting information on long-acting FSH medications as it may be the preferred approach to stimulating egg follicles among egg donors. Another commenter who disagreed suggested that many outcomes and side effects are dosage dependent, and CDC should not remove the requirement to report dosage. A third commenter who also disagreed suggested that follicle stimulating hormone medications have documented risks such as ovarian hyperstimulation and risks to both mother and infants such as ectopic pregnancy and birth defects.
Based on these comments, CDC will not make proposed changes to remove the requirement for clinics to report dosage information for fertility medications, including Clomiphene, Letrozole, other oral medications described in
II. CDC proposal to remove the requirement for clinics to report information on research cycle study type: Among the six commenters, one commenter agreed, one commenter did not comment, and four commenters disagreed on this proposed change. Two of the commenters who disagreed stated that the low number of research cycles performed is not a justification for removing this reporting requirement. Two other commenters that disagreed noted the need for more regulation of research cycles as well as follow up of outcomes for patients and infants.
Therefore, proposed changes to remove the requirement to report research cycle study type as described in
III. CDC proposal to add the requirement for clinics to report the date of cryopreservation for fresh embryos: Two commenters agreed, two commenters did not have any comments on this proposed change, one commenter suggested additional information should be provided on the need for this additional data collection, and one commenter had non-substantive responses to this CDC proposal. One commenter who agreed cautioned that the date of embryo cryopreservation could be captured only for the first time that an embryo was thawed but not if the embryo was refrozen again after additional culturing such as in some cases when performing pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT).
Based on these comments, CDC will add the date of fresh embryo cryopreservation to the reporting requirements described in
CDC proposed not to pursue implementation of a plan to conduct targeted validation of clinics and identification of major data discrepancies as described in the
In addition, CDC currently conducts annual site visits by selecting 5-10% of all reporting clinics and about 70-80 cycles per clinic for data validation as described in
The targeted data validation and major discrepancy analysis were additional mechanisms that CDC was considering identifying any systematic problems that could cause data collection to be inconsistent or incomplete. The commenters' suggestions will be taken under consideration as CDC works toward further refining its data validation process while balancing potential gains in accuracy with additional burden to clinics. The details of any modifications to data validation will be published in a separate
At this time, changes proposed to data validation procedures described in
The purpose of this notice published August 29, 2024 is to announce revised data collection requirements and data validation procedures. This data collection is approved under Office of Management and Budget Control Number 0920-0556, expiration date: 12/31/2024. Effective for reporting year 2025, CDC is implementing the following changes to its data collection and data validation procedures.
CDC will remove the requirement for clinics to report dosage information for long-acting FSH as described in
CDC will remove the requirement for clinics to report the research cycle study type. This deletion will apply to all data fields for research study types: Device study, Protocol study, Pharmaceutical study, Laboratory technique, and Other research, as described in
CDC will add the requirement for clinics to report date of fresh embryo cryopreservation for all frozen embryo transfer procedures as described in
CDC will not conduct targeted validation of clinics and identification of major discrepancies during data validation, as described in
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 30, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The CMS-18-F5 is used to establish entitlement to Part A and enrollment in Part B for claimants who must file an application. The application follows the questions and requirements used by SSA on the electronic application. This is done not only for consistency purposes but because certain requirements under titles II and XVIII of the act must be met in order to qualify for Part A and Part B; including insured status, relationship and residency. The form is owned by CMS but is not utilized by CMS staff. SSA uses the form to collect information and make Part A and Part B entitlement determinations on behalf of CMS.
2.
The relationship of the HO/CO is that of a related organization to a provider (see 42 CFR 413.17). A HO/CO usually furnishes central management and administrative services,
CMS requires the form to determine a HO/CO's reasonable cost incurred in furnishing management and administrative services to Medicare providers, each of which includes the costs in their cost report for reimbursement. A Medicare-certified provider includes costs allocated from the home office cost statement in the provider's costs used by CMS for rate setting; payment refinement activities, including developing a market basket; and Medicare Trust Fund projections; and to support program operations. Additionally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) uses the cost report data to calculate Medicare margins (a measure of the relationship between Medicare's payments and providers' Medicare costs) and analyze data to formulate Medicare Program recommendations to Congress.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) announces the intent to award a single-source supplement to the current cooperative agreement held by the National Council on Aging for the “Strengthening the Direct Care Workforce: A Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Initiative”. The administrative supplement for FY 2024 will be in the amount of $1,787,524 bringing the total award for FY 2024 to $3,087,207. The supplement will provide sufficient resources to enable the grantee and their partners to increase funding for technical assistance (TA) to state aging and disability partnerships to collaborate with workforce entities to strengthen the Direct Care Workforce. The funding will enable the grantee to support additional states, including at more robust levels than originally planned.
For further information or comments regarding this program supplement, contact Caroline Ryan, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, telephone (202) 795-7429; email
Through this initiative, ACL is advancing the capacity to recruit, train and retain a high-quality, competent, and effective direct care workforce of professionals capable of meeting the growing needs that older adults and people with disabilities have for such supports. The purpose of this program is to catalyze change at a systems level that will address the insufficient supply of trained DCWs, promote promising practices at all levels of the service
The intended outcomes of the initiative are as follows:
1. Increase the availability and visibility of tools and resources to attract, train and retain the direct care workforce in quality jobs where they earn livable wages and have voice in their working environment, and have access to benefits and opportunities for advancement.
2. Increase the number of states that develop and sustain collaborations across state systems and workforce agencies to implement strategies that will improve the recruitment, retention, and advancement of high quality DCW jobs.
ACL believes it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to supplement the current grantee's existing project. Establishing an entirely new grant project at this time would be potentially disruptive to the current work already well under way. Further, it could create unintended duplication of effort and missed opportunities for greater coordination. Additionally, if this supplement is not provided, the project would be unable to expand its current technical assistance and training efforts to reach more state partnerships across aging, disability and workforce stakeholders to work together to strengthen the direct care workforce.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for Manufacturers.” This final guidance document is intended to help manufacturers better understand and use the VMSR Program. This guidance describes and clarifies several aspects of the VMSR Program, including the FDA's approach to determining the eligibility of product codes for the program and the conditions for submitting medical device reports (MDRs) for device malfunctions in summary format under the program.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time 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 (
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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet.
Michelle Rios, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1116, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6107; or James Myers, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.
Each year, FDA receives over 2 million MDRs of suspected device-related deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions. The MDR Program is one of the postmarket surveillance tools that FDA uses to monitor device performance, detect potential device-related safety issues, and contribute to benefit-risk assessments. Malfunction reports represent most of the MDRs received by FDA on an annual basis. As part of FDA's postmarket surveillance for devices, the Agency reviews the MDRs submitted by both mandatory and voluntary reporters.
FDA has determined that for many devices, it is appropriate to permit manufacturers to submit malfunction summary reports on a quarterly basis, for certain malfunctions related to devices with certain product codes, instead of individual, 30-day malfunction reports. FDA is issuing this final guidance document to help manufacturers better understand and use the VMSR Program. This guidance describes and clarifies several aspects of the VMSR Program, including FDA's approach to determining the eligibility of product codes for the program and the conditions for submitting MDRs for device malfunctions in summary format under the program. The program began in 2018 when FDA issued a notification in the
A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
Published elsewhere in this edition of the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for Manufacturers. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel, August 28, 2024, 10 a.m. to August 29, 2024, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, NIMHD, DEM II, Suite 800, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Virtual Meeting, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting dates from August 28-29, 2024 to August 28, 2024, 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard is accepting applications to fill nineteen (19) vacancies on the National Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (Committee). This Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland Security via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment; routing measures; marine information; and aids to navigation systems. Individuals currently holding these appointments will need to re-apply if they wish to continue as Committee members.
Complete applications must reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before September 30, 2024.
Applications must include (a) a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National Navigation Safety Advisory Committee and detailing their qualifications to serve as a representative in one or more of the six identified membership categories, (b) a resume detailing the applicant's relevant experience for the membership categories applied for, and (c) a brief 2-3 paragraph biography written in third-person perspective. Applications should be submitted via email with subject line “Application for NNAVSAC” to
Ms. Danielle Gibb, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Navigation Safety Advisory Committee; telephone 206-831-0261 or email at
The National Navigation Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee. The Committee was authorized on December 4, 2018, by section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192), and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 15107. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 46 U.S.C. 15109.
The Committee is required to meet at least once a year in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a). We expect the Committee will hold meetings twice per year, which may be held in person, virtual, or hybrid of in person and virtual depending on the needs of the Committee to allow maximum flexibility. The meetings are held at locations across the country selected by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Under provisions in 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December 31st of the third full year after the effective date of your appointment. Under provisions 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security may require an individual to have passed an appropriate security background examination before appointment to the Committee.
In this solicitation for Committee members, we will consider applications for nineteen (19) to be selected from the following membership categories:
In accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15107(c)(4), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, based on the needs of the U.S. Coast Guard, determine the number of members of the Committee who represent each entity specified in each category and should not be construed to require an equal distribution of members representing each entity.
Each member of the Committee must have expertise, knowledge, and experience on matters related to the function of the Committee which is to advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, and aids to navigations systems.
The members who fill the nineteen (19) positions described above will be appointed to represent the interest of their respective groups and viewpoints and are not Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).
All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government. The only compensation the members may receive is for travel
If you are appointed as a member of the Committee, you will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Gratuitous Services Agreement.
In order for the Department to fully leverage broad-ranging experience and education, the National Navigation Safety Advisory Committee must be diverse with regard to the stakeholders represented. The Department is committed to pursuing opportunities, consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee that reflects the diversity of the Nation's people.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, email your application to
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0030, Oil and Hazardous Materials Transfer Materials; without change.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 28, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0288] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, fax 202-372-8405, or email
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0288, and must be received by October 28, 2024.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee management; notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open for the public to attend in-person or via webinar. The in-person capacity is limited to 50 persons for public attendees.
The COAC will meet on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please note the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. Registration to attend in person and comments must be submitted no later than September 13, 2024.
The meeting will be held at the Office of Training and Development, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC, in Classroom 7300A. For virtual participants, the webinar information will be posted by 5 p.m. EDT on September 17, 2024, at
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than September 13, 2024, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2024-0021. All submissions received must also include the words “Department of Homeland Security.” All comments received will be posted without change to
Mrs. Latoria Martin, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1440; or Ms. Felicia M. Pullam, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 344-1440 or via email at
Notice of this meeting is given under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, title 5 U.S.C. ch. 10. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.
For members of the public who plan to participate in person, please register online at
For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, the webinar information will be posted by 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 17, 2024, at
The COAC is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you require a reasonable accommodation due to a disability to fully participate, please contact Mrs. Latoria Martin at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.
There will be a public comment period after each subcommittee update during the meeting on September 18, 2024. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Please note the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page:
The COAC will hear from the current subcommittees on the topics listed below:
1. The Intelligent Enforcement Subcommittee will provide updates on the work completed and topics discussed in its working groups as well as present proposed recommendations for the COAC's consideration. The Antidumping/Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) Working Group will provide updates regarding its work and discussions on importer compliance with AD/CVD requirements. The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Process Modernization Working Group anticipates providing updates concerning progress associated with its recent recommendations regarding the Trade Seminars Mailbox and enhancements to the CBP Petitions Portal specific to IPR enforcement. The Forced Labor Working Group (FLWG) will provide updates on continued discussions regarding trade outreach, clarification of requirements, and previous recommendations.
2. The Next Generation Facilitation Subcommittee will provide updates on all its existing working groups. The Broker Modernization Working Group (BMWG) plans to present proposed recommendations for the COAC's consideration which aim to improve the end user experience and re-envision the Customs Broker Licensing Exam (CBLE). The Modernized Entry Processes Working Group (MEPWG) will report on the work undertaken regarding Cyber Incident Guidance for Brokers. The Passenger Air Operations (PAO) Working Group has continued to meet to discuss CBP's feedback on past recommendations, landing rights issues, and to plan future goals and/or work for the group. The remaining working groups, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 2.0 Working Group and the Customs Interagency Industry Working Group (CIIWG), were not active this past quarter but will provide a report on topics that each working group will focus on in the coming quarter.
3. The Secure Trade Lanes Subcommittee will provide updates on its seven active working groups: the Centers Working Group, the Cross-Border Recognition Working Group, the De Minimis Working Group, the Export Modernization Working Group, the FTZ Warehouse Working Group, the Pipeline Working Group, and the Trade Partnership and Engagement Working Group. The Centers Working Group created three sub-groups to focus on specific areas of concerns for the trade community: the Operations Sub-Group, the Structure Sub-Group, and the Communications Sub-Group. The Operations Sub-Group will evaluate the internal structure and operations of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers) and their interactions with the ports, and with the trade communities in the areas of fines, penalties, forfeitures, drawback, and broker management. The Structure Sub-Group will evaluate the number of Centers, the branches within the Centers, and workload equity amongst the Centers. This includes consideration of potential structural changes to help with the Centers' expanded responsibility in admissibility reviews, Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) investigations. This sub-group will also consider how information within Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) may be better leveraged to help the Centers with these reviews. The Communications Sub-Group will focus on IT/ACE solutions, including web pages to facilitate communications for CBP internally and externally with the trade. The Cross-Border Recognition Working Group has continued to discuss best practices at ports of entry on the southern border that facilitate legitimate trade. The De Minimis Working Group has continued discussions on the revised timeframe for submitting Type 86 entries and on potential compliance measurements for de minimis shipments that CBP can communicate to the trade community. The Export Modernization Working Group has continued its work on the Electronic Export Manifest Pilot Program and the effects of progressive filing by the shipper to continuously update export information on successive dates, rather than on a specific date. The Export Modernization Working Group is also working on recommendations regarding the CBP Experience (CBPX) to present to the COAC for consideration. The Drawback Task Force, within the Export Modernization Working Group, has continued discussions around COAC-approved recommendations that are in the process of being implemented from last quarter; is conducting an analysis of program statistics in the areas of streamlining privilege application questions, compliance issues, de minimis amount for drawback claims; and is examining areas to maximize resources. The FTZ/Warehouse Working Group continues to review 19 CFR part 146, expanding the CTPAT program, and modernizing ACE functionality for FTZs, and it anticipates presenting proposed recommendations for the COAC's consideration at the September public meeting. The Pipeline Working Group has continued discussing the most appropriate commodities for and potential users of Distributed Ledger Technology to engage in the contemplated pilot for tracking pipeline-borne goods. The Trade Partnership and Engagement Working Group has continued its work on the elements of the CTPAT security program and the validation process.
Meeting materials will be available on September 9, 2024, 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 27, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2458, 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 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
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administers the Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) vetting program. TSA conducts a security threat assessment (STA) of HME applicants in accordance with statutory requirements and collects fees to recover TSA's costs to conduct the STA and administer the program. Some States have elected to collect the information and fees from the applicant directly, and transmit such information and fees to TSA for the STA. In this notice, TSA announces that the fee to conduct the STA for these States will be increased to fully recover the costs to administer the program.
The fee changes in this notice are effective December 2, 2024.
Julie Labra, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6047; 240-568-5698; or email at
You can find an electronic copy of this rulemaking using the internet by accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
Under 49 U.S.C. 5103a, a State is prohibited from issuing or renewing an HME for a commercial driver's license (CDL) unless TSA has first determined that the driver does not pose a security threat. To make this security determination, TSA conducts an STA by comparing applicant biographic and biometric information to criminal, immigration, and security databases, and adjudicating any derogatory information against the standards set forth in 49 CFR part 1572. If TSA determines the individual meets the STA standards, TSA notifies the State, and the State may issue the HME. TSA is required to recover its vetting program costs through user fees, in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 469, and consequently, TSA collects fees from applicants during the STA process.
Under TSA's regulations, States may collect and transmit the fingerprints and applicant information from drivers who apply to obtain or renew an HME; or elect to use TSA's agent to collect and transmit the information and fees for the STA.
States that choose to collect applicant information and submit it to TSA are known as
In this notice, TSA is announcing that the fee to Non-Agent States will be increased to recover TSA's costs to process these applications. Under TSA's regulations, TSA may revise fees for the STA by publishing a notice in the
TSA reviews the costs associated with conducting STAs at least once every 2 years.
In 2022, TSA analyzed the costs associated with the HME Non-Agent State STAs and found that the current fees to process these applications do not cover TSA's costs. The fees TSA charges the Non-Agent States have not been revised since 2005, and many recent information technology and customer service improvements, and increased contract costs have not been accounted for in the fees. Also, the Non-Agent State submissions require TSA to expend additional program oversight, case management, and manual intervention to ensure that the biographic information is attached to the correct biometric information. Consequently, TSA has had to hire more staff to accurately process these submissions.
Based on this analysis, TSA determined that the fees for TSA's processing the Non-Agent State STAs need to be increased from $34.00 per application to $57.25 per application for standard STAs in order to comply with 6 U.S.C. 469 and recoup vetting costs. Similarly, for STAs in which the applicant has already completed a comparable STA and does not need to undergo the full standard STA, the reduced fee needs to increase from $29.00 to $31.00.
As discussed above, Congress directed TSA to collect user fees to cover the costs of its transportation vetting and credentialing programs.
TSA established the methodology for calculating the vetting fees for the HME program were explained in detail in the preamble to the HME Fees Final Rule.
The new HME fees for STA applications for Non-Agent States are set forth below.
Applicants in Non-Agent States may also have to pay the fee the State has established to recover its costs to collect and transmit information and fees to TSA.
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Volcano Early Warning System Advisory Committee (NVEWSAC) will take place and is open to members of the public.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and on Thursday, September 19, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
The meeting will be held in the TownPlace Suites, 17717 SE Mill Plain Blvd., Vancouver, WA 98683. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person or can attend via webinar. Comments can be sent by email to
Gari Mayberry, Volcano Hazard Program Coordinator, USGS, by mail at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 905, Reston, VA 20192; by email at
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the FACA of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR part 102-3.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Members of the public wishing to participate in the meeting should contact Gari Mayberry by email at
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of the Interior is announcing that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Public Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet in person and by video teleconference as noted below.
The PAC will hold public meetings on September 16, 2024, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.; October 8, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on October 9, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Alaska time (AKT).
The September 16, 2024, meeting will be held virtually.
The October 8-9, 2024, meeting will be held in-person in the Glenn Olds Hall Conference Room, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska, and a virtual participation option will be available using the Microsoft Teams meeting platform. To view a tutorial on how to join a Teams meeting, please go to
The video feature will be turned off for all attendees except for the EVOS PAC, EVOS Trustee Council staff, presenters, and speakers during public comment to limit bandwidth use and maximize connectivity during the meeting. Please remain muted until you are called upon to speak.
Please check the EVOS Trustee Council website for updates regarding the meetings at
Grace Cochon, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, telephone number: (907) 227-3781; email:
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. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The EVOS PAC was created pursuant to paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of
The EVOS PAC meeting agenda for the September 16, 2024, meeting will include a discussion regarding the Killey River acquisition and the meeting agenda for the October 8-9, 2024, meeting will include review of the biennial report that summarizes program and project status. An opportunity for public comments will be provided. The final agenda and materials for the meeting will be posted on the EVOS Trustee Council website at
Interested persons may choose to make oral comments at the meeting during the designated time. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and the time available, the amount of time for oral comments may be limited. Interested parties should contact the Designated Federal Officer (see
Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, language translation services, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the (see
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the EVOS PAC to consider during the public meeting. Written statements may be sent in advance of the scheduled meeting at least three (3) business days prior to the meeting so that the information may be made available to the EVOS PAC for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Designated Federal Officer (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This Order rescinds Public Land Order Nos. 7899 (
This PLO takes effect on August 29, 2024.
Brittany Templeton, Realty Specialist, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, Mailstop #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, (907) 271-4214, or
The Department identified certain procedural and legal defects in the decision-making processes for PLO Nos. 7899 (
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1701
Subject to valid existing rights, Public Land Order Nos. 7899 (86 FR 5236), 7900, 7901, 7902, and 7903 are hereby rescinded as improperly issued; therefore, the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals remain in place to protect the public interest in important resource values insofar as they affect the Federal lands described in PLO Nos. 7899-7903 in the Bay, Bering Sea-Western Interior, East Alaska, Kobuk-Seward Peninsula, and Ring of Fire planning areas. The areas described aggregate a total of approximately 28,000,000 acres.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(d)(1) Withdrawals Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This ROD describes the decision rationale for the selection of the No Action Alternative. The ROD also describes the basis for Secretarial rescission of Public Land Order (PLO) Nos. 7899, 7900, 7901, 7902, and 7903. Any order rescinding these PLOs will be published separately.
The Secretary of the Interior signed the ROD on August 23, 2024. Any order rescinding PLOs will be published in the
The ROD is available via the internet at:
Racheal Jones, BLM Project Manager, telephone (907) 290-0307; address ANCSA 17(d)(1) EIS, BLM Anchorage District Office, Attn: Racheal Jones, 4700 BLM Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507; email
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), BLM Alaska, prepared the ANCSA 17(d)(1) Withdrawals EIS to evaluate the effects of any Secretarial decision to revoke withdrawals established following enactment of ANCSA section 17(d)(1) affecting the lands described in PLO Nos. 7899 through 7903. PLO Nos. 7900, 7901, 7902, and 7903 would have revoked withdrawals on lands in the Ring of Fire, Bay, Bering Sea-Western Interior, and East Alaska planning areas,
Subsequently, the DOI identified certain procedural and legal defects in the decision-making process for these five PLOs, as described in the April 16, 2021,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of extension.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is seeking nominations for membership on the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC). The MAC will advise the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM regarding the development of the management plan and management of the monument. This is a 30-day extension of the call for nominations published in the
The deadline for submission of nominations for membership on the MAC published July 30, 2024, at 89 FR 61132, is extended. Nominations for membership on the MAC must be received no later than September 30, 2024.
Nominations for the MAC should be sent to the BLM office listed in the
Kirsten Cannon, Public Affairs Specialist, Southern Nevada District, 4701 North Torrey Pines, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130; phone: (702) 515-5057; email:
Presidential Proclamation 10533 directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish and maintain an advisory committee under FACA (5 U.S.C. ch. 10) with the specific purpose of providing information and advice regarding the development of the management plan and management of the monument. The MAC is established in accordance with section 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1739). The BLM is subject to standards and procedures for the creation, operation, and termination of BLM resource advisory councils found at 43 CFR part 1784 subpart 1787 and the Federal Advisory Committee regulations found at 41 CFR part 102-3.
The MAC will consist of 15 representatives to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior as follows:
1. Eight representatives of Tribal Nations with historical connection to the lands within the Monument;
2. A representative of developed outdoor recreation activities;
3. A representative of dispersed recreational activities, including hunting or wildlife organizations;
4. A representative of the conservation community;
5. A representative of the scientific community;
6. A representative of local business owners;
7. A representative of local governmental entities; and
8. A representative of local citizens.
Representatives will be appointed to the MAC to serve three-year staggered terms. Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding the membership requirements of the MAC and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. Nominees are strongly encouraged to include supporting letters from employers, associations, professional organizations, and/or other organizations that indicate support by a meaningful constituency for the nominee. Nominees should indicate any BLM permits, leases, or licenses that they hold personally or are held by their employer. Members of the MAC serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, members engaged in MAC business may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Federal Government service.
The MAC will meet approximately two to four times annually, and at such other times as designated by the Designated Federal Officer.
Simultaneous with this notice, the BLM will post additional information for submitting nominations at
The original call for nominations was published in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 17, 2024, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by September 13, 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 17, 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.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Justice.
Notice.
The FBI is authorized to establish and collect fees for providing fingerprint-based and name-based criminal history record information (CHRI) checks submitted by authorized users for noncriminal justice purposes including employment and licensing. A portion of the fee is intended to reimburse the FBI for the cost of providing fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks (“cost reimbursement portion” of the fee). The FBI is also authorized to charge an additional amount to defray expenses for the automation of fingerprint identification and criminal justice information services and associated costs (“automation portion” of the fee). This notice provides the revised fee schedule.
This revised fee schedule takes effect January 1, 2025.
Ms. Cynthia D. Harris, Chief, Financial Management Unit, Resources Management Section, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, FBI, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Module D-3, Clarksburg, WV 26306. Telephone number 304-625-4152.
Pursuant to the authority in Public Law 101-515, as amended and codified at 34 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 41104, the FBI has established user fees for authorized agencies requesting noncriminal justice fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks. These noncriminal justice, fingerprint-based
In accordance with the requirements of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 20.31(e), the FBI periodically reviews the process of providing fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks to determine the proper fee amounts which should be collected, and the FBI publishes any resulting fee adjustments in the
A fee study was conducted in keeping with 28 CFR 20.31(e)(2) and employed the methodology detailed in
Pursuant to the recommendations of the study, the fees for fingerprint-based CHRI checks will be decreased and the fee for name-based CHRI checks will also decrease for federal agencies specifically authorized by statute,
The following tables detail the fee amounts for authorized users requesting fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks for noncriminal justice purposes, including the difference from the fee schedule currently in effect.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until September 30, 2024.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Jennifer Truman, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531; email:
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ 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 DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of proposed designation.
The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) authorizes the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to designate additional databases for inclusion in the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) Do Not Pay Working System under the Do Not Pay Initiative. PIIA requires OMB to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment prior to designating additional databases. In fulfillment of this requirement, OMB is publishing this Notice of Proposed Designation to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed designation of: Treasury's Account Verification Services (AVS); and Treasury's Death Notification Entries (DNE). This notice has a 30-day comment period.
Comments must be in writing and must be received by on or before September 30, 2024. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, if OMB decides to finalize the designation, OMB will publish a notice in the
Comments on this proposal must be submitted electronically before the comment closing date to
Rebecca Rowe, Policy Analyst, Office of Federal Financial Management, OMB (telephone: 202-395-3993; email:
PIIA codified the Do Not Pay Initiative in Title 31 of the U.S. Code. Prior to enactment of PIIA, the Do Not Pay Initiative was already established by law and underway across the Federal Government.
Treasury reports that all Do Not Pay Working System users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks associated with the use of specific data. Treasury also reports that it has dedicated resources to establish a privacy program based on applicable requirements, the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), and industry best practices. Treasury reports that its privacy program supports various internal controls in collaboration with Treasury leadership and legal counsel, as well that projects are reviewed by Treasury through a data usage governance process. Treasury has responsibility for compliance with privacy restrictions and manages risks associated with the use of specific data to reduce improper payments for Do Not Pay Working System users.
Treasury risk mitigation measures for the Do Not Pay Working System include maintaining a current and compliant Security Accreditation and Authorization (SA&A) package, in accordance with Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requirements. Additionally, to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access, login to the Do Not Pay Working System requires Personal Identity Verification (PIV) credentials,
OMB has reviewed the recommendation of Treasury to designate the following two databases for inclusion in the Do Not Pay Working System:
1.
2.
OMB proposes to designate these databases for inclusion in the Do Not Pay Working System because these databases will substantially assist in preventing improper payments. In making this determination, OMB considered the following: (1) statutory or other limitations on the use and sharing of specific data; (2) privacy restrictions and risks associated with specific data; (3) likelihood that the data will strengthen program integrity across programs and agencies; (4) benefits of streamlining access to the data through the central Do Not Pay Initiative; (5) costs associated with expanding or centralizing access, including modifications needed to system interfaces or other capabilities in order to make data accessible; and (6) other policy and stakeholder considerations, as appropriate.
Fiscal Service has prepared justifications for each of the six factors, as summarized below. These justifications have been reviewed by OMB.
a. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent the Do Not Pay Working System from using AVS or DNE data.
a. In evaluating potential privacy risks and compliance measures associated with the designation of these databases, Fiscal Service conducted separate privacy risk assessments for both AVS and DNE. The privacy risk assessments for AVS and DNE aimed to: ensure conformance with applicable legal, regulatory, and policy requirements for privacy; determine the risks and effects; and evaluate protections and alternative processes to mitigate potential privacy risks.
i.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
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.
Tuesday, September 17, 2024, 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 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 Webinar, 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 September 17, the event address for attendees is:
The webinar number is 2831 319 9645 and the webinar password is 5pMuwqJB*89. If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is 1-929-251-9612 or 1-415-527-5035 and access code is 283 131 99645 and password is 57689752.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that this meeting is held on this day to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
For more information, please visit
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Balloon Program Independent Review Subcommittee. This subcommittee reports to the NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee, which reports to the Director, Astrophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Thursday, September 12, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in and webinar information below under
Ms. KarShelia Kinard, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355 or
As noted above, this meeting is virtual and will take place telephonically and via a webinar. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. The connectivity information for each day is provided below. For audio, when you join the
To join by telephone, the toll numbers are +1-415-527-5035 United States Toll or +1-312-500-3163 United States Toll (Chicago). Access code: 282 469 49184.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
The agenda and Program Analysis Group presentations will be posted on the Astrophysics Advisory Committee web page:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
This is a hybrid meeting. Members and the public may attend this meeting in-person or virtually via Zoom.
Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the website:
The link for registration for Zoom is:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Public Records and NRC Forms 507 and 509.”
Submit comments by September 30, 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.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0189 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:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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 OMB, 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.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Public Records and NRC Forms 507 and 509.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OPM is proposing a new information collection for USAJOBS Career Explorer. The information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 30, 2024. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to this information collection activities, please contact. Human Resources Solution, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cori Schauer, via phone 202-606-1200 or via electronic mail to
The Office of Personnel Management, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Agency assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Agency's information collection requirements and provide the requested
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.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-6 permits national securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) (collectively, “SROs”) to destroy or convert to microfilm or other recording media records maintained under Rule 17a-1, if they have filed a record destruction plan with the Commission and the Commission has declared such plan effective.
There are currently 36 SROs: 25 national securities exchanges, 1 national securities association, the MSRB, and 9 registered clearing agencies. Of the 36 SROs, only 2 SRO respondents have filed a record destruction plan with the Commission. The staff calculates that the preparation and filing of a new record destruction plan should take 160 hours. Further, any existing SRO record destruction plans may require revision, over time, in response to, for example, changes in document retention technology, which the Commission estimates will take much less than the 160 hours estimated for a new plan. The Commission estimates that each SRO that has filed a destruction plan will spend approximately 30 hours per year making required revisions. Thus, the total annual time burden is estimated to be approximately 60 hours per year based on two respondents (30 hours per respondent × 2 respondents).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
On April 29, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On July 8, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
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.
BZX proposes to amend Rule 11.28(a) to add three additional CMC MOC Cut-Off times. These proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off times would be in addition to the existing CMC MOC Cut-Off time of 3:49 p.m. ET, for a total of four matching sessions: 3:15 p.m. ET (new); 3:30 p.m. ET (new); 3:49 p.m. ET (current); and 3:54 p.m. ET (new).
The proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times are based on Member feedback.
On May 5, 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to adopt CMC, a match process for MOC orders in non-BZX listed securities and on December 1, 2017, filed Amendment No. 1
The Commission conducted a de novo review of the CMC proposal and associated public record, including Amendment No. 2, the Petitions for Review, and all comments and statements submitted by certain exchanges, issuers, and other market participants,
Importantly, after reviewing the entire record, the Commission concluded that BZX met its burden to show that the proposed rule change was consistent with the Act, and pursuant to its January 21, 2020, order, set aside the Approval Order and approved BZX's CMC proposal, as amended (“Final Approval Order”).
Subsequently, on August 5, 2022, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend Rule 11.28(a) to extend CMC's MOC Cut-Off Time from 3:35 p.m. to 3:49 p.m. (“CMC Amendment”).
In approving the CMC Amendment, the Commission stated that the proposal was consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Exchange believes that when applying the Commission's analysis in the Final Approval Order and the CMC Amendment Approval Order, to the current proposal, such review would similarly conclude that this proposal is consistent with the Act.
On March 10, 2023, the Exchange moved its CMC MOC Cut-Off Time from 3:35 p.m. to 3:49 p.m. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, since implementing the 3:49 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, CMC has experienced noticeable growth in its trading volume, rising modestly beginning in May 2023 and more remarkably between September 2023 and November 2023, ultimately reaching a record-high of 155 million shares traded in December 2023. Based on CMC's growing usage, the Exchange has received various feedback from both existing CMC users and prospective CMC users. Collectively, these Members have requested certain enhancements to CMC that would encourage existing users to increase their utilization of CMC, as well encourage prospective users to begin using CMC. Namely, Members have expressed a desire for: (1) CMC MOC Cut-Off Times earlier in the trading day, and prior to the current CMC MOC Cut-Off Time of 3:49 p.m.; and (2) a CMC MOC Cut-Off Time closer to Nasdaq's MOC cut-off time of 3:55 p.m.
As noted, both the Exchange and its Members believe that these enhancements will help to position CMC as more viable alternative to the primary exchanges' closing auctions and off-exchange closing price services. Additionally, multiple CMC MOC Cut-Off Times will make CMC more appealing to a larger segment of Members by providing Members with different trading strategies and technical and operational capabilities more flexibility in how they manage their MOC and closing price orders.
Accordingly, BZX proposes to amend Rule 11.28(a) to add three CMC MOC Cut-Off times. These MOC Cut-Off times would be in addition to the existing CMC MOC Cut-Off time of 3:49 p.m., for a total of four matching sessions: 3:15 p.m. (new), 3:30 p.m. (new), 3:49 p.m. (current), 3:54 p.m. (the 3:54 p.m. matching session is for Nasdaq-listed securities only). MOC orders may be entered for each matching session up to the relevant CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, beginning each day at 6:00 a.m.
• Order 1 will not match with Order 2 in the 3:15 p.m. or 3:30 p.m. session. Order 2's unfilled quantity of 100 shares will first carry forward from the 3:15 session, then again from the 3:30 session, and finally to the 3:49 session.
• Order 1 and Order 2 match in the 3:49 p.m. session for 100 shares at the closing price.
• Order 1 and Order 3 match in the 3:15 p.m. session for 100 shares at the closing price and Order 1's 400 remaining shares are carried over to the next session.
• Order 1 and Order 2 match in the 3:30 p.m. session for 100 shares at the closing price and Order 1's 300 remaining shares are carried over to the next session.
• Order 1 and Order 4 match in the 3:49 p.m. session for 100 shares at the closing price and Order 1's 200 remaining shares are canceled back.
• Order 1 and Order 3 match in the 3:15 p.m. session for 100 shares at the closing price and Order 1's 400 remaining shares are carried over to the next session.
• Order 1
• Order 2's 100 shares are unfilled and canceled back at 3:30 p.m.
As reflected in the proposed edits to Rule 11.28, Interpretations and Policies .02, the Exchange also wishes to clarify that the reference to an “impairment”
By way of illustration, assume a Member has submitted an order to participate in the 3:15 CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, has selected “Cancel on Disconnect = No”, a matching engine impairment occurs at 3:14 p.m., and an impairment impacting the CMC matching process lasts less than five-minutes. In this instance, the Member's MOC order will remain open, and post matching engine failover, the Exchange will simply conduct the CMC session that should have occurred at 3:15 p.m. and attempt to match the Member's MOC order.
To further illustrate, assume a Member has designated its MOC order to participate in multiple CMC MOC Cut-Off Times (
In addition, as is the case with the current functionality, if the Exchange becomes impaired after completing the closing match process in a security, it will retain all matched MOC orders and execute those orders at the official closing price once the impairment is resolved.
Finally, the Exchange wishes to amend Rule 11.28(c) to clarify that even with the proposed multiple CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, the total size of matched buy and sell orders disseminated via the Cboe Auction Feed will be limited to that
Members requesting CMC MOC Cut-Off Times earlier in the trading day have expressed that these additional CMC MOC Cut-Off Times will provide them more flexibility in managing their MOC and closing price order flow. For instance, some Members maintain multiple internal trading desks, each managing different types of order flow and trading strategies. One trading desk may manage orders that its traders actively trade throughout the trading day leading up to the close, making CMC MOC Cut-Off Times closer to 4:00 p.m. more valuable for that trading desk. Separately, one of the Member's other trading desks may typically execute orders guaranteeing the closing price or perhaps manage orders on behalf of index funds or ETF providers, that are often benchmarked to the official closing price. For this workflow, a Member may be agnostic as to when it commits MOC orders to CMC, a primary exchange's closing auction, or an off-exchange closing price service, and may view the ability to commit such order flow to CMC earlier in the trading day at 3:15 p.m. or 3:30 p.m. as a valuable tool to help them execute orders and de-risk their trading risk earlier in the trading day.
Additionally, Members have indicated the proposed 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Times will also assist them in managing any technological and operational risk associated with managing high volumes of order flow. Notional trading and trading volatility are typically at their highest towards the end of Regular Trading Hours. During this time, Members systems may be managing a significant number of MOC or closing price orders. Unless the Member is attempting to beat the closing price by trading such orders for as long as possible heading into the close, committing such orders to CMC earlier in the trading day will enable them to reduce the number of MOC and closing price orders their trading systems must manage. Notably, the Exchange noted in its CMC Amendment that today's market participants, including CMC's existing users, were technologically equipped
Overall, by having the ability to submit orders to the proposed 3:15 p.m., 3:30 p.m., and 3:49 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, Members will have a greater opportunity of being matched earlier in
The proposed 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time applies only to orders in Nasdaq-listed securities. Members requesting the CMC MOC Cut-Off Time of 3:54 p.m. have indicated that this CMC MOC Cut-Off Time will help to better align CMC with Nasdaq's MOC cut-off time of 3:55 p.m., thereby helping to make CMC a more viable alternative to Nasdaq's closing auction.
As noted in SR-CboeBZX-2022-038,
Similar to the rationale for extending CMC's MOC Cut-Off Time from 3:35 p.m. to 3:49 p.m., Members desire a CMC MOC Cut-Off Time that is closer to Nasdaq's MOC cut-off time and the end of Regular Trading Hours
In support of the above, Figure 2 shows the total average
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the addition of the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed times would offer CMC users increased flexibility in how to manage their MOC and closing price order flow and their associated trading, and their technological and operational risk, as well help to better position CMC to serve as a viable alternative to the primary exchanges' closing auctions, and off-exchange closing price mechanisms. For instance, by having the option to allocate their MOC order flow across various CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, Members will have the opportunity to receive matches earlier in the trading day, thereby reducing their trading risk, as well as the volume of orders their systems may need to handle at once, thereby reducing operational and technology risk.
Furthermore, the Exchange has received feedback from Members that while moving the single CMC MOC Cut-Off Time from 3:35 p.m. to 3:49 p.m. (six-minutes prior to Nasdaq's MOC cut-off time) has been helpful in managing their MOC orders in NYSE-listed securities, Members desire a CMC MOC Cut-Off Time that more closely aligns with the current Nasdaq MOC cut-off time of 3:55 p.m. In this regard, the proposed 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off time will enable Members to actively trade orders in Nasdaq-listed securities for a longer period as they will no longer have to submit their MOC orders to BZX in order to participate in CMC at 3:49 p.m.—
The Exchange notes that the primary market participants that would utilize the proposed 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time are technologically equipped
Similarly, given the widespread use of routing and trading technology in today's markets, it is also likely that potential new CMC users currently possess the technological capabilities to manage the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, and if they do not, they could similarly rely on third-party providers
The Exchange also notes that as CMC volume has increased, prospective new users
As with existing CMC users, given the widespread use of routing and trading technology in today's markets, it is likely that potential new CMC users also currently possess the technological capabilities to manage the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, and if they do not, could similarly rely on third-party providers
As noted in its CMC Amendment, the Exchange continues to believe that the extension of cut-off times by the primary exchanges since CMC's approval in 2020 as well as the growth of off-exchange venues
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because adding the proposed 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time would more closely align the CMC with the cut-off time in place for the Nasdaq closing auction. By adding the 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, CMC has the ability to become a more comparable alternative to Nasdaq's closing auction, thereby “foster[ing] price competition and . . . decreas[ing] costs for market participants.”
Importantly, even with the addition of the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, CMC will remove any perceived impact on Nasdaq's closing auction by publishing the number of matched order shares,
The proposed Interpretations and Policies .02 will also help to protect investors by making clear to Members participating in CMC how the Exchange will manage their CMC MOC orders in the event of a matching engine impairment that impacts the initiation and/or completion of a CMC matching session. Accordingly, Members will be better to manage their closing order flow and avoid risk of not receiving the official closing price for their orders by making informed decisions as to when they choose to remove their orders from CMC and instead re-route them to the primary exchanges' closing auctions, or an off-exchange closing price offering. Given the importance of the closing price to many investors for indexing, benchmark pricing, and guaranteed closing price orders, the information provided in proposed Interpretation and Policies .02 is critical to protection of investors.
Finally, the proposed amendment to 11.28(c) is designed to foster the protection of investors, and to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. Because the Cboe Auction Feed will only disseminate the total size of matched buy and sell orders for each individual CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, and not the aggregate size across all CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, the information that any Member might be able to glean from the Cboe Auction Feed message will remain limited in nature (discussed
As was the case with its CMC Amendment, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirements.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that even if the addition of CMC MOC Cut-Off Times reduces the number of MOC orders routed to a security's primary listing market, CMC is still designed to remove any perceived adverse impact on the primary listing markets' close because the total matched shares for each CMC session would still be disseminated by the Exchange free of charge via the Cboe Auction Feed prior to the primary exchanges' cut-off times. Additionally, even with the addition of the new CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, because of the technological capabilities of today's market participants discussed more fully above, the market makers on the primary exchanges would still have the ability to incorporate the Cboe Auction Feed information, including information about total matched shares in CMC, into their closing processes.
Furthermore, current users of CMC are either technologically equipped to manage the proposed CMC MOC-Cut Off Times or rely on third-party solutions that provide them with the technological capability to appropriately manage the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times and timely re-route unmatched CMC orders participate in the primary exchanges' closing auctions. Similarly, given the widespread use of routing and trading technology in today's markets, it is likely that potential new CMC users already possess the technological capabilities to manage the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, and if they do not, similarly rely on third-party providers with high-speed technology offerings. Alternatively, CMC users lacking high-speed trading and routing technology can simply utilize the earlier CMC MOC Cut-Off Times of 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., providing themselves
Another matter addressed by the Commission in its review of the Original Proposal was fragmentation, and whether CMC would fragment the markets beyond what currently occurs through off-exchange close price matching venues offered by broker-dealers.
As illustrated in the first two charts below, a growing proportion of trading volume at the close occurs on off-exchange venues, where the TRF close volume, as a percent of Exchange close volume, has risen steadily since Q1 2019.
Given the significant volume of off-exchange MOC activity already occurring, the Exchange believes that there is still ample opportunity for the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times to attract
Moreover, the Exchange's observations in Figure 6 below show that the closing auction volume on both NYSE and Nasdaq has increased despite the launch of CMC on March 6, 2020, and the subsequent implementation of the 3:49 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time in 2023. Therefore, while the proposed amendment may lead to additional orders being routed to CMC rather than the primary exchanges' closing auctions, it cannot be said with certainty that such a change will cause additional fragmentation in the marketplace as it is possible that existing MOC order flow that already executes on off-exchange venues may in fact migrate to CMC. In other words, MOC orders that are already being executed and matched away from the primary exchanges will continue to match and execute on away venues, but rather would match and execute on CMC rather than on a less regulated, less-transparent venue. In fact, the Exchange believes the proposed additional CMC MOC Cut-Off Times are not likely to materially increase market fragmentation and therefore have a negative impact on the market because data shows that even with the implementation of CMC, there is still a significant amount of volume executed on the primary exchanges' suggesting that market participants continue to utilize the primary closing auctions.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is simple and straightforward, and as such will not significantly increase market complexity or operational risk. The Exchange already received approval to change its MOC Cut-Off Time from 3:35 p.m. to 3:49 p.m., which resulted in no increase in market complexity and operational risk. The Exchange now seeks only to offer additional CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, none of which will increase market complexity or operational risk. Indeed, the proposed 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Times are designed to help aid Members in managing their MOC order flow, and actually
Additionally, just as the Exchange did prior to proposing the 3:49 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, the Exchange discussed this current proposal with CMC users and learned that CMC's current users are technologically equipped
Moreover, the proposed 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Times will also enable new and existing CMC users that may not have high-speed trading and routing infrastructure, to still utilize CMC and not rely on high-speed technology to reroute unmatched CMC orders from the 3:49 p.m. or 3:54 p.m. MOC Cut-Off Times. The Exchange also notes that CMC is a voluntary offering, and Members may freely decide whether to participate.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that market participants are well accustomed to managing the various cut-off times in today's marketplace and incorporating these timelines into their trading decisions. The number of exchanges and off-exchange venues with extended cut-off times indicates that market participants find value in their ability to retain control of their trading heading into the end of Regular Trading Hours, and the primary exchanges and off-exchange venues have responded to such demand. Certainly, market participants would not desire cut-off times closer to the end of Regular Trading Hours if they could not technologically and operationally manage their trading accordingly. Therefore, the proposed additional later CMC MOC Cut-Off Time should not present market participants with any novel operational or technological complexities.
The Exchange further notes that it has considered carefully the operational and technological requirements necessary to implement multiple CMC MOC Cut-Off Times. Relevant operations and technology teams were consulted in designing the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times and confirmed that the Exchange's Systems can process and manage multiple CMC sessions. As such, the Exchange does not anticipate any undue increase in operational or technological complexity in implementing the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times.
In its CMC Amendment the Exchange noted that the value of the 3:49 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time was not the proximity of CMC's matched share message to the cut-off times of the primary exchanges, but rather the ability of users to trade their orders for a longer period of time before deciding whether to commit their MOC orders to CMC. The Exchange further stated that it did not expect that the proposed extension of the CMC MOC Cut-Off Time to 3:49 p.m. would result in an increase in manipulative activity due to information asymmetries, or that it raised any unique manipulation concerns relative to how CMC existed with a CMC MOC Cut-Off Time of 3:35 p.m. Importantly, the Exchange believes that this rationale also applies to the current proposal, and that the SEC should dismiss any manipulation concerns regarding this proposal, just as it did with the Original Proposal and CMC Amendment.
Here, the Exchange notes that the mere existence of multiple CMC MOC Cut-Off Times does not make any information CMC participants may be able to glean from their paired-off MOC orders any more valuable. Rather, the value of any information learned by CMC participants is still limited in nature. For instance, any information that CMC participants may learn from receiving matched MOC order messages is indeed limited in nature because the CMC participant would still only know the unexecuted size of its own order(s).
While this proposal would result in the total shares for buy and sell orders in CMC being disseminated several times during the last hour of trading, and with two CMC MOC Cut-Off Times in close proximity to the primary exchanges' MOC cut-off times, these changes do not suddenly make such information more valuable or useful in terms of enhancing opportunities for gaming and manipulating the official closing price. The 3:49 p.m. and 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Times are one-minute prior to NYSE's and Nasdaq's MOC cut-off times. As noted throughout, today's markets are marked by technological solutions which typically operate in durations of microseconds. In this context, the separation between the CMC MOC Cut-Off Times and those of NYSE's and Nasdaq's is a substantial duration of time, during which much can change in the marketplace, thus limiting the value of information, if any, that can be gleaned from CMC's dissemination of matched shares at these times.
Moreover, the 3:15 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time is thirty-five-minutes prior to NYSE's MOC cut-off time and forty-minutes prior to Nasdaq's MOC cut-off time. Similarly, the 3:30 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time is twenty-minutes prior to the NYSE's MOC cut-off time, and twenty-five-minutes prior to the Nasdaq MOC cut-off time. These proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times are even further from the primary exchanges' cut-off times than the current CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, during which the marketplace and CMC will experience significant change, even further limiting the value of information, if any, that a Member may glean from the dissemination of matched shares.
Furthermore, as with the current CMC MOC Cut-Off Time, the proposed CMC MOC Cut-off Times do not present any information asymmetries that do not already exist in today's markets, as the very nature of trading creates short term asymmetries of information to those who are parties to a trade.
Moreover, there are currently controls and processes in place to monitor for manipulative trading activity, such as the supervisory responsibilities and capabilities of exchanges and the expansive cross market surveillance conducted by FINRA. Following approval of this proposal, the Exchange, FINRA and others will continue to surveil for potential manipulative activity and when appropriate, bring enforcement actions against market participants engaged in manipulative trading activity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendment applies equally to all Members, and is intended to offer additional CMC MOC Cut-Off Times, enabling a broader segment of Members to utilize CMC at times that better accommodate different trading strategies, and Members' technological and operational capabilities. As discussed above, current and prospective CMC users are technologically equipped to participate in the 3:54 p.m. matching session and timely re-route any unmatched CMC MOC orders in Nasdaq-listed securities to the Nasdaq closing auction. Members that may lack internal high-speed routing and trading technology may utilize third-party providers (discussed above) should they choose to participate in the 3:54 p.m. matching session. The Exchange notes that participation in CMC remains optional, and Members have the ability to determine whether or not to submit MOC orders to participate in CMC based on their technological capabilities.
Alternatively, the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times of 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. will allow CMC users that may lack high-speed trading and routing infrastructure to utilize CMC without having to quickly re-route unmatched CMC orders to the primary exchanges just prior to their cut-off times, as well as attract new users who may desire a mechanism that allows them to match their MOC orders earlier in the trading day. Moreover, CMC is a voluntary closing match process, and Members are not required to participate in CMC. By offering earlier CMC MOC Cut-Off Times in addition to the proposed later MOC Cut-Off Time of 3:54 p.m., the Exchange is providing various alternatives to support Members with different technological capabilities, thus seeking to foster competition rather than hinder competition.
The Exchange also 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 noted above, the proposed 3:54 p.m. MOC Cut-Off Time more closely aligns CMC MOC with the Nasdaq MOC cut-off time, while still providing CMC participants with an opportunity to reroute any of their unpaired MOC orders in Nasdaq-listed securities to the Nasdaq closing auction. In this regard, the proposed 3:54 p.m. MOC Cut-Off Time may make CMC a more viable alternative to the Nasdaq closing auction and “should foster price competition and thereby decrease costs for market participants.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.28(a) to add three additional CMC MOC Cut-Off Times to the existing CMC MOC Cut-Off time of 3:49 p.m., for a total of four matching sessions: 3:15 p.m. (new); 3:30 p.m. (new); 3:49 p.m. (current); and 3:54 p.m. (new). The 3:54 p.m. CMC MOC Cut-Off Time will be limited to Nasdaq-listed securities. The Commission believes that the earlier MOC Cut-Off Times will provide Exchange Members with more flexibility in mitigating any technological and operational risk associated with managing their MOC and closing price order flow. The Exchange has noted that this ability would be particularly useful on high-volume order days.
The proposed later MOC Cut-Off Time of 3:54 p.m., limited to orders in Nasdaq-listed securities, would be one-minute prior to Nasdaq's current MOC cut-off time of 3:55 p.m. The Exchange states that it discussed the proposed rule change with both current CMC users and potential new CMC users and confirmed that both groups could technologically manage the proposed rule change.
The Exchange also states that CMC's total matched shares information would still be disseminated by the Exchange free of charge via the Cboe Auction Feed, albeit at the new proposed MOC Cut-Off Times. According to the Exchange, because of the speeds and widespread use of market technology, market makers on the primary exchanges could, should they choose to do so, incorporate the Cboe Auction Feed information into their closing processes.
As noted above, the Exchange's survey information and data indicate that CMC users and other market participants could accommodate the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times and the total matched shares information would be disseminated by the Exchange free of charge at each of the proposed CMC MOC Cut-Off Times. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change should not significantly contribute to increased market complexity or operational risk.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretations and Polices .02 to Rule 11.28 to state how the Exchange will handle orders designated for multiple CMC MOC Cut-Off Times in the event the Exchange experiences a matching impairment impacting the Exchange's ability to conduct CMC matching sessions. The Commission believes that the proposed procedures provide more transparency regarding how MOC orders would be treated in the case of a matching engine impairment, particularly in the case where an MOC order has been designated for several matching sessions. In addition, the Commission believes that allowing a Member to still cancel their order during a matching engine impairment and prevent their MOC order(s) from participating in CMC once the matching engine failover is completed helps Members better manage their orders should an impairment occur and, if desired, re-route their orders to the applicable primary listings exchange.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, 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.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Commission believes that these revisions strengthen the proposal and provide greater specificity and justification about to the proposed rule change and do not raise any novel regulatory issues. The additional explanation in support of the proposal as well as the amended rule language in Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 assist the Commission in evaluating the Exchange's proposal and in determining that it is consistent with the Act. Moreover, Amendment No. 3 makes no substantive changes to the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) intends to issue an order or orders, pursuant to Section 15B(c)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), cancelling the municipal advisor registration of Development & Public Finance, LLC (CIK# 1613281) (hereinafter referred to as the “Registrant”).
Section 15B(c)(3) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission finds that any municipal advisor registered under Section 15B is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a municipal advisor, the Commission, by order, shall cancel the registration of such municipal advisor.
The Commission finds that the Registrant:
(i) has not filed any municipal advisor form submissions with the Commission through the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system since May 24, 2021 (including but not limited to the annual amendments (form MA-A) required by 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-5(a)(1)); and/or
(ii) based on information available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”), (a) is not registered as a municipal advisor with the MSRB under MSRB Rule A-12(a) and/or (b) does not have an associated person who is qualified as a municipal advisor representative under MSRB Rule G-3(d) and for whom there is a Form MA-I required by 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-2(b) available on EDGAR, and/or (c) has not, since February 2022, filed with the MSRB any Form A-12 annual affirmation as required by MSRB Rule A-12(k); and/or withdrew its registration from the MSRB without first withdrawing its registration from the Commission.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Registrant is either no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a municipal advisor.
Notice is also given that any interested person may, by September 23, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, submit to the Commission in writing a request for a hearing on the cancellation of the registration of the Registrant, accompanied by a statement as to the nature of such person's interest, the reason for such request, and the issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and such person may request to be notified if the Commission should order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be addressed to the Commission's Secretary at the address below. All comments or requests received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
At any time after September 23, 2024, the Commission may issue an order or orders cancelling the registration of the Registrant, upon the basis of the information stated above, unless an order or orders for a hearing on the cancellation shall be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who requested a hearing, or to be advised as to whether a hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements thereof. Any Registrant whose registration is cancelled under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the Commission in accordance with Rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Mark Elion, Senior Counsel, Office of Municipal Securities, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or at (202) 551-5680.
For the Commission, by the Office of Municipal Securities, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the DTC Operational Arrangements (Necessary for Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services) (“OA”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the OA to provide for a modernized process for submission of LENS Notices by issuers, transfer agents and trustees to DTC's Legal Notice System (“LENS”) and DTC's processing of such LENS Notices. Specifically, the proposal would revise the OA to replace existing methods for submitting LENS Notices with an online portal (“Issuer Agent Portal”) that DTC has developed for this purpose. The proposed rule change would also make technical and clarifying changes to the text of the OA relating to the submission and processing of LENS Notices, as described below.
A LENS Notice is a notice of information, provided to DTC by an issuer, transfer agent or trustee of securities, which is intended to be made available to holders of securities. Parties submitting LENS Notices may have a legal or regulatory obligation or other interest in distributing the notice information to holders of the securities. Such notices are delivered to DTC because DTC's nominee, Cede & Co., is the registered holder of the applicable securities and/or DTC is the “appropriate qualified registered securities depository”
A type of LENS Notice DTC receives is a notice of transfer agent changes (“17Ad-16 Notice”) pursuant to Rule 17Ad-16.
Any transfer agent for securities held at DTC, whether or not it is a registered transfer agent, and any trustee for securities held at DTC must submit information relating to transfer agent or trustee changes to DTC. Today, these LENS Notices must be provided via (i) designated email addresses (“Email Method”) or (ii) an online link (“Link Method,” and collectively with the Email Method, the “Current Submission Methods”), as set forth in the OA.
Issuers, transfer agents and trustees may deliver other types of LENS Notices to holders to DTC for posting to LENS. These include, but are not limited to, closing memoranda, new issue memoranda, mutual fund memoranda, notices for ineligible securities, legal notices, tax notices and other forms of public investor communications.
If a LENS Notice is delivered to DTC using the applicable Current Submission Method, DTC then posts the LENS Notice to LENS, where it becomes available for viewing by Participants.
The Current Submission Methods require manual intervention by DTC to post the LENS Notices that it receives to LENS. DTC proposes to automate these processes through implementation of the Issuer Agent Portal, which would provide a more efficient straight-through posting of LENS Notices, in support of the regulatory required timeframes. In this regard, the Issuer Agent Portal would allow centralized receipt and dissemination of LENS Notices and eliminate the manual processing that DTC currently performs to post LENS Notices.
More specifically, the proposal will update the OA to establish the Issuer Agent Portal for (i) receiving LENS Notices, and (ii) automated posting of LENS Notices to LENS. The Current Submission Methods would be discontinued. The proposed rule change will also make technical and clarifying changes relating to the submission and posting of LENS Notices, as described below.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the OA text will be revised as set forth below.
The proposed rule change will revise this subsection II. B. 4. b. of the OA to (i) remove the Current Submission Methods as the accepted methods for submission of 17Ad-16 Notices to DTC, (ii) provide that the Issuer Agent Portal is the only means for transfer agents to submit 17Ad-16 Notices to DTC and give a brief description of the Issuer Agent Portal,
The subsection will also state that all information is posted to LENS in a standardized format reflecting the information submitted by the agent and that agents should retain a copy of all information they submit for their own records.
An email address will also be provided for inquiries to DTC relating to the 17Ad-16 Notice process.
Subsections II.B.4.c. and d. would be deleted. These sections itemize information currently required to be included in a 17Ad-16 Notice relating to the termination of transfer agent services or the assumption of transfer agent services, as applicable. Since these lists are derived primarily from Rule 17Ad-16 itself, it is unnecessary to state them in the OA. In this regard, DTC would replace these lists with the general description of required information, as stated above, with respect to revised subsection II.B.4.b.
Subsection II.B.4.e. will be re-lettered as II. B. 4. c. to reflect the changes to the subsections described above.
This subsection notes the type of information that a transfer agent must provide in a notice if it is changing its name or address. This information includes (i) certain contact information of the agent, (ii) FINS Number, (iii) agent number and (iv) the location where security certificates shall be received for transfer and re-registration. Rule 17Ad-16 requires the transfer agent's notice to include all this information in its notice except for the agent number. To conform the list of required items in this subsection to Rule 17Ad-16, DTC proposes to revise this subsection to eliminate the agent's number
This subsection would also note that hard copy notices physically mailed to DTC and/or notices attached to or embedded in an email sent to DTC will not be posted to LENS.
An email address will also be provided for inquiries to DTC relating to the 17Ad-16 Notice process, and certain technical and clarifying changes will be made to this subsection's text.
Subsection II.B.4.f. will be re-lettered as II.B.4.e. to reflect the lettering change related to the consolidation of Subsections II.B.4.c. and II.B.4.d.
The text of this subsection will be revised to change an existing reference that a 17Ad-16 Notice is “sent” to DTC to instead state that a 17Ad-16 Notice is “submitted” to DTC, in order to reflect the proposed submission change through the Issuer Agent Portal.
The Issuer Agent Portal will include a new Legal & Tax function to be used by transfer agents to submit to LENS legal, tax and other forms of public investor communications
Text would be added to clarify that the Issuer Agent Portal is the only facility where transfer agents can submit such forms of public investor communications that are not related to corporate actions to DTC. The text would also state that hard copy notices physically mailed to DTC and/or notices embedded in an email sent to DTC will not be posted to LENS.
Subsection II.B.4.g. will be re-lettered as II.B.4.f. to reflect the lettering change related to the consolidation of Subsections II.B.4.c. and II.B.4.d.
This subsection provides requirements for submission of other types of notices to LENS including but not limited to closing memoranda, new issue memoranda, mutual fund memoranda and notices for ineligible securities. The proposed rule change would revise this section to reflect that such notices must be submitted to DTC through the 17Ad-16 Function of the Issuer Agent Portal, rather than via email, as they are currently submitted.
A disclaimer stating that DTC does not screen notices for posting to LENS would be revised to reflect the new mechanism through the Issuer Agent Portal for the submission of notices and clarify that DTC does not screen such notices from issuers, agents and trustees.
The proposed rule change would provide clarifying text that notices relating to corporate actions (except for bankruptcy notices)
This subsection provides instructions for trustees for providing notices with respect to a change in trustee with respect to an issue of securities. While DTC understands that trustees may not be transfer agents, and thus may not subject be to Rule 17Ad-16, the information provided for such notices is like that required for 17Ad-16 Notices. Therefore, the proposed rule change would revise the text of this subsection to remove references to the Current Submission Methods as acceptable means for submitting such notices, and direct that these notices should be submitted through the 17Ad-16 Function.
An email address will also be provided for inquiries to DTC relating to the notice process.
Subsection II.B.6. provides instructions for use of the LIBOR Replacement Index Communication Tool (“Communication Tool”), which is designed to help issuers, trustees and agents communicate via LENS certain LIBOR benchmark replacement information for securities that are converting from LIBOR (USD) to an alternative reference rate.
The proposed changes will be implemented by no later than August 23, 2024, on a date to be announced by Important Notice.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Rule 17ad-22(e)(21)
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
As described above, the proposed rule change consists of changes to the OA that will provide for the submission of LENS Notices for posting to LENS via the Issuer Agent Portal. The Issuer Agent Portal will be publicly available on DTCC's web page and DTC believes the portal will be as readily accessible to submitters of LENS Notices as the Current Submission Methods. Consistent with current practice, issuers, agents and trustees will not be charged for submission of LENS Notices.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they would be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on
DTC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 26, 2024, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt a new protocol, “Ouch to Trade Options” or “OTTO” and establish pricing for this new protocol.
According to the Exchange, today, BX Participants may enter orders into the Exchange through the “Financial Information eXchange” or “FIX.”
The Exchange states that the OTTO protocol is a proprietary protocol of Nasdaq, Inc and that the Exchange continues to innovate and modernize technology so that it may continue to compete among options markets.
The Exchange states that as proposed, OTTO would allow Participants and their Sponsored Customers
The Exchange states that while the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty the amount or type of OTTO Ports market participants will in fact purchase, the Exchange anticipates that some Participants will subscribe to multiple OTTO Ports in combination with FIX Ports.
In connection with offering OTTO, the Exchange proposes to amend other rules within Options 3.
The Exchange states that it proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7, Types of Orders and Quote Protocols.
BX also states that it proposes to amend the “DAY” order in Options 3, Section 7(b)(3) that currently provides that a Day order may be entered through FIX.
BX states that it also proposes to amend the “Good Til Cancelled” or “GTC” order which currently does not specify that a GTC order may be entered through FIX.
The Exchange states that BX proposes to amend Options 3, Section 8, Options Opening Process.
The Exchange states that it proposes to amend the Options 3, Section 12, Crossing Orders.
The Exchange states that it proposes to amend the Kill Switch at Options 3, Section 17.
The Exchange states that it proposes to renumber Options 3, Section 17(a)(i) and (ii) as (a)(1) and (2).
The Exchange states that finally, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed Options 3, Section 17(a)(2) to align to MRX's rule text by providing “Once a BX Participant initiates a Kill Switch pursuant to (a)(1) above. . .” in the first sentence.
The Exchange states that it proposes to amend Options 3, Section 18, Detection of Loss of Communication.
The Exchange states that at this time, the Exchange proposes to permit orders entered through OTTO to be cancelled similar to FIX orders when the Exchange's server does not receive a Heartbeat message for a certain time period.
The Exchange states that similar to FIX, when the OTTO Port detects the loss of communication with a Participant's Client Application because the Exchange's server does not receive a Heartbeat message for a certain time period, the Exchange will automatically logoff the Participant's affected Client Application and automatically cancel all of the Participant's open orders through OTTO.
The Exchange states that proposed Options 3, Section 18(f)(1) would provide that if the Participant changes the default number of “nn” seconds, that new setting shall be in effect throughout the current Session of Connectivity and will then default back to fifteen seconds.
The Exchange states that it proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, BX Options Market—Ports and other Services, to assess a port fee for the new OTTO protocol.
The Exchange states that it proposes to assess an OTTO Port Fee of $650 per port, per month, per account number.
The Exchange states that it also proposes to add OTTO and Disaster Recovery Ports to the list of ports that are capped at $7,500 on BX.
The Exchange states that it will implement this rule change on or before December 20, 2025, and that it will announce the operative date to Participants in an Options Trader Alert.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
The Exchange states that the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange states that the Exchange's proposal to adopt OTTO is consistent with the Act because OTTO would provide BX Participants with an alternative protocol to submit orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange states that with the addition of OTTO, a BX Participant may elect to enter their orders through FIX, OTTO, or both protocols, although both protocols are not necessary.
The Exchange that in connection with offering OTTO, the Exchange proposes to amend other rules within Options 3 to make clear where the FIX and OTTO protocols may be utilized.
The Exchange states that the Exchange's proposal to amend the Kill Switch at Options 3, Section 17 to align its rule text in proposed Options 3, Section 17(a) and (a)(2) with MRX's Options 3, Section 17 is consistent with the Act because it does not substantively amend the functionality beyond removing the group level cancel capability.
The Exchange states that finally, the Detection of Loss of Communication would apply equally to FIX and OTTO.
The Exchange states that only one FIX order protocol is required for a BX Participant to submit orders into BX and to meet its regulatory requirements
The Exchange states that the Exchange proposes to offer each Participant the first FIX Port at no cost to meet their regulatory requirements.
The Exchange states that the Exchange's proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as BX is providing BX Participants the first FIX Port to submit orders at no cost.
The Exchange states that further, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the first FIX Port to Participants as all BX
The Exchange states that the Exchange's proposal to assess $650 per port, per month, per account number for an OTTO Port is reasonable because OTTO is not required for a Participant to meet its regulatory requirements.
The Exchange states that finally, in the event that a BX Participant elects to subscribe to multiple ports, the Exchange offers a monthly cap beyond which a Participant would be assessed no additional fees for the month and proposes to add OTTO to the monthly cap.
The Exchange states that the proposed BX OTTO fee is the same as the OTTO Port fee on MRX, for the identical port.
The Exchange states that the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange states that the OTTO protocol is a proprietary protocol of Nasdaq, Inc.
The Exchange states that the Exchange's proposal to adopt an OTTO Protocol does not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition.
The Exchange states that the Exchange's proposal to amend other rules within Options 3 to make clear where the FIX and OTTO protocols may be utilized does not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition as these rules will apply in the same manner to all Participants.
The Exchange states that nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition because BX's proposal to offer the first FIX Port for free is similar to MRX's FIX Port offering and allows BX Participants to meet their regulatory obligations.
The Exchange states that nothing in the proposal burdens intra-market competition because the Exchange would uniformly assess the port fees to all Participants, as applicable, and would uniformly apply monthly caps.
The Exchange states that to the extent that the Commission does not permit BX to assess the same identical fees for the same identical products on its market, the Commission is creating a burden on competition by allowing MRX to assess fees and offer a product that would otherwise be unavailable on BX.
When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal, they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.
Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), require the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using the exchange's facilities;
In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the Commission intends to further consider whether the Proposal is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the proposed rule change.
In addition to temporarily suspending the Proposal, the Commission also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
• Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange “provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities”;
• Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be “designed to permit unfair discrimination between
• Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange “not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of [the Act].”
As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange made various arguments in support of the Proposal. There are questions as to whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed fees are consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder. The Commission will specifically consider, among other things, whether the Exchange has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed fees are reasonable and equitably allocated, are not unfairly discriminatory, and do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable and equitably allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant concerns. Such comments should be submitted by September 19, 2024. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 3, 2024. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the Proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule changes.
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to adopt an alternative requirement to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier and increase the cap of the additional credit payable for providing liquidity under the Tape B Tiers pricing tier. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt an alternative requirement to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier and increase the cap of the additional credit payable for providing liquidity under the Tape B Tiers pricing tier. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective August 14, 2024.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues to which the firm routes order flow. With respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity on an Exchange against which market makers can quote, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Currently, under the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier, an ETP Holder could qualify for a credit of $0.0025 per share
The Exchange proposes to adopt another alternative method that ETP Holders could utilize to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit. As proposed, an ETP Holder could qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit of $0.0025 per share for adding liquidity in Tape B securities if such ETP Holder is registered as a Lead Market Maker
The proposed rule change to adopt the proposed alternative method to qualify for the existing credit is designed to incentivize ETP Holders to increase liquidity-providing orders in NYSE Arca-listed securities, including in lower volume securities, in which they are registered as a LMM or Market Maker, that they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders for the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange notes that its listing business operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants, including issuers of securities, LMMs, and other liquidity providers, can readily transfer their listings, or direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels, liquidity provision incentive programs, or other factors at a particular venue to be insufficient or excessive. The proposed rule change reflects the current competitive pricing environment and is designed to incentivize market participants to participate as LMMs or Market Makers, especially in Less Active ETPs, and thereby, further enhance the market quality on such securities listed on the Exchange and encourage issuers to list new products on the Exchange.
The Exchange currently provides an increased cap applicable under the Tape B Tiers pricing table. Specifically, if an ETP Holder is registered as a LMM or Market Maker in at least 100 Less Active ETPs in which it meets at least two Performance Metrics, where the ETP Holder, together with any affiliates, has Adding Tape B ADV that is an increase of at least 60% over the ETP Holder's Adding ADV in Q3 2019, as a percentage of Tape B CADV, then such ETP Holder receives a combined credit of up to:
• $0.0033 per share if the ETP Holder, together with any affiliates, has Tape B Adding ADV equal to at least 0.65% of Tape B CADV, or
• $0.0034 per share if the ETP Holder, together with any affiliates, has Tape B Adding ADV equal to at least 0.70% of Tape B CADV.
The Exchange proposes to increase the combined credit, from $0.0034 per share to $0.0035 per share, if a qualifying ETP Holder that, together with any affiliates, has Tape B Adding ADV equal to at least 0.70% of Tape B CADV.
The Exchange believes increasing the combined credit payable to ETP Holders, from up to $0.0034 per share to up to $0.0035 per share would provide an incentive to ETP Holders to register as LMMs or Market Makers and incentivize such liquidity providers to increase the number of orders sent to the Exchange.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including credits and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, the Exchange's fees are reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt an alternative method to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit is reasonable because it provides an additional opportunity for ETP Holders to receive an existing rebate on qualifying orders in a manner that incentivizes order flow on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed alternative method to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier is reasonable because it provides ETP Holders with an additional way to qualify for the pricing tier's credit by incentivizing ETP Holders to increase liquidity-providing orders in NYSE Arca-listed securities, including in lower volume securities, in which they are registered as a LMM or Market Maker, that they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders to register as a LMM or Market Maker in a minimum number of Less Active ETPs and to meet at least two Performance Metrics in such securities as the Exchange believes this requirement would enhance market
The Exchange believes the proposed change to adopt an alternative method to qualify for existing credits is reasonable as these changes would provide an incentive for ETP Holders to direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added levels of liquidity in order to qualify for the existing credit, thereby contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, particularly for attracting order flow that provides displayed liquidity on an exchange. More specifically, the Exchange notes that greater add volume order flow may provide for deeper, more liquid markets and execution opportunities at improved prices, which the Exchange believes would incentivize liquidity providers to submit additional liquidity and enhance execution opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt an alternative method to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit represents an equitable allocation of fees and credits and is not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply uniformly to all ETP Holders, in that all ETP Holders would be eligible for the existing credit and have the opportunity to meet the tier's criteria by registering as a LMM or Market Maker in a Less Active ETP and meeting the market quality metrics. The Exchange believes that the proposal to offer rebates tied to market quality metrics represents an equitable allocation of payments because LMMs and Market Makers would be required to not only meet their Rule 7.23-E obligations, but also meet prescribed quoting requirements in order to qualify for the credit. Further, all LMMs and Market Makers on the Exchange are eligible to participate and could do so by simply registering in a Less Active ETP and meeting the proposed market quality metrics.
Under the proposal, the existing rebate would apply automatically and uniformly to all ETP Holders that register as a LMM or Market Maker in at least 50 Less Active ETPs in which it meets at least two Performance Metrics.
While the Exchange has no way of knowing whether the proposed alternative method to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier would definitively result in any particular ETP Holder qualifying for the existing credit, the Exchange anticipates a number of ETP Holders will seek to qualify for the rebate by registering as a LMM or Market Maker in at least 50 Less Active ETPs and meet the required performance metrics.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide an alternative way to qualify for the per share credit under the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier, as the credit would be provided on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that meet the proposed requirement. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed alternative method would incentivize ETP Holders to register in Less Active ETPs and send more order to the Exchange to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit.
The Exchange believes that the proposed alternative method to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit is not unfairly discriminatory because it would be available to all ETP Holders on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. In this regard, the Exchange notes that ETP Holders that do not meet the proposed alternative criteria would continue to have the opportunity to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit by satisfying the two current requirements, which would not change as a result of this proposal.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The Exchange believes that increased liquidity and higher volumes improves market quality on the Exchange, which increases the likelihood of orders being executed at prices desired by ETP Holders and thereby incentivizing ETP Holders to direct more order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange places a higher value on displayed liquidity because the Exchange believes that displayed liquidity is a public good that benefits investors generally by providing greater price transparency and enhancing price discovery on a public exchange, which ultimately lead to substantial reductions in transaction costs.
The proposed change to the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier is designed as an incentive to ETP Holders interested in meeting the tier criteria to submit additional order flow to the Exchange and each will receive the existing rebate if the tier criteria is met. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule change will not adversely impact any ETP Holder's pricing or its ability to qualify for other tiers. Rather, should an ETP Holder not meet the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier's criteria, the ETP Holder will merely not receive the corresponding rebate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to increase the combined credit, from up to $0.0034 per share to up to $0.0035 per share, payable to ETP Holders if an ETP Holder, together with any affiliates, has Tape B Adding ADV equal to at least 0.70% of Tape B CADV is a reasonable means of attracting additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the increased financial incentive, which is among the highest paid by the Exchange, would encourage ETP Holders to submit additional liquidity to a national securities exchange and receive the proposed higher rebate. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders to meet the applicable volume threshold to qualify for the increased credit, given the higher combined credit up to of $0.0035 per share that the Exchange would pay if the tier criteria were met.
The Exchange believes that submission of increased liquidity to the Exchange would promote price discovery and transparency and enhance order execution opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial amounts of liquidity present on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders to register as a LMM or Market Maker in a minimum number of Less Active ETPs and to meet at least two Performance Metrics in such securities as the Exchange believes this requirement would enhance market quality in Less Active ETPs and support the quality of price discovery in such securities.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to increase the combined credit, from up to $0.0034 per share to up to $0.0035 per share, payable to ETP Holders if a ETP Holder, together with any affiliates, has Tape B Adding ADV equal to at least 0.70% of Tape B CADV equitably allocates its fees and credits among market participants because it is reasonably related to the value of the Exchange's market quality associated with higher equities volumes. The Exchange believes that increased liquidity and higher volumes improves market quality on the Exchange, which increases the likelihood of orders being executed at prices desired by ETP Holders and thereby incentivizing ETP Holders to direct more order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange places a higher value on displayed liquidity because the Exchange believes that displayed liquidity is a public good that benefits investors generally by providing greater price transparency and enhancing price discovery on a public exchange, which ultimately lead to substantial reductions
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to increase the combined credit payable to ETP Holders because the increased credits would be paid to all ETP Holders that qualify for the credit on an equal basis. Additionally, the proposed rule change to increase the combined credit payable to qualifying ETP Holders neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant.
On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to maintain, if not improve its market share relative to its competitors.
Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently offer comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection described below. The PRA requires Federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2024.
Send all comments to Donna Fudge,
Donna Fudge,
SBA requires this information from small business concerns to determine an applicants' eligibility for recertification in the 8(a) Business Development, Veteran-Owned and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB/SDVOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), and Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) programs.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Montana (FEMA-4813-DR), dated 08/23/2024.
Issued on 08/23/2024.
Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/23/2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications 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 20578B and for economic injury is 205790.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting: SBA Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Advisory Committee.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) will hold a meeting of the SBA Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Advisory Committee on Tuesday, September 17, 2024. Members will convene as an independent source of advice and recommendations to SBA on matters supporting U.S. innovation, addressing commercialization hurdles and other vulnerabilities in the
Tuesday, September 17, 2024, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern time (ET).
The Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Advisory Committee will meet, and the meeting will be live streamed for the public. Register at
Brittany Sickler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBA, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 369-8862 or
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the SBA Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Advisory Committee (the “IIEAC”). The IIEAC is tasked with providing advice, insights, and recommendations to SBA on matters broadly related to the U.S. startup and small business innovation ecosystem, and more specifically supporting innovation across the U.S.; developing and/or evolving SBA programs and services to address commercialization hurdles; addressing vulnerabilities and gaps in funding domestic invention and innovation; facilitating and enabling broad access and participation in federal innovation support and funding programs. The final agenda for the meeting will be posted on the IIEAC website at
Any member of the public may submit pertinent questions and comments concerning IIEAC affairs at any time before or after the meeting and participate in the livestreamed meeting of the SBA Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Advisory Committee on September 17. Comments may be submitted to Brittany Sickler at
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 30, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2024-0113 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0903. Email:
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel NAYA MARYN is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2024-0113 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 30, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2024-0117 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0903. Email:
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel SANDY SEA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2024-0117 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 30, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2024-0114 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0903. Email:
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel GUNGHO is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2024-0114 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 30, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2024-0115 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0903. Email:
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel SECOND WIND is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2024-0115 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 30, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2024-0116 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0903. Email:
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel SLAMMIN SALMON III is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2024-0116 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces a public meeting of the Peer Review Group (PRG). The PRG was established pursuant to the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations to plan for the decommissioning and disposition of the Nuclear Ship Savannah (NSS). PRG membership is comprised of officials from the U.S. Department of Transportation, MARAD, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other consulting parties. The public meeting affords the public an opportunity to participate in PRG activities, including reviewing and providing comments on draft deliverables. MARAD encourages public participation and provides the PRG meeting information below.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 17, 2024, from 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. eastern daylight time (EDT). Requests to attend the meeting must be received by 5 p.m. EDT one week before the meeting, Tuesday, September 10, 2024, to facilitate entry or to receive instructions to participate online. Requests for accommodations for a disability must also be received one week before the meeting, Tuesday, September 10, 2024.
The meeting will be held onboard the NSS, online, or by phone. The NSS is located at Pier 13 Canton Marine Terminal, 4601 Newgate Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21124.
Erhard W. Koehler, (202) 680-2066 or via email at
The decommissioning and disposition of the NSS is an Undertaking under Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 requires that federal agencies consider views of the public regarding their Undertakings; therefore, in 2020, MARAD established a Federal docket at
The NHPA Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Decommissioning and Disposition of the NSS is available on the MARAD docket located at
The agenda will include (1) welcome and introductions; (2) program update; (3) status of PA stipulations; (4) other business; and (5) date of next meeting. The agenda topic titled PA will focus on a discussion about architectural salvage as a mitigation measure. The agenda will also be posted on MARAD's website at
The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend in person or online must RSVP to the person listed in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in New York, NY. The entire meeting will be closed.
The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. The meeting will be held September 17, 2024.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway-Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.
Krista M. Floyd, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607. Telephone (813) 367-8444 (not a toll-free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009, that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway-Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The IRS is soliciting comments on U.S. Employment Tax Returns and related Forms.
Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
Tax compliance burden is defined as the time and money taxpayers spend to comply with their tax filing responsibilities. Time-related activities include recordkeeping, tax planning, gathering tax materials, learning about the law and what you need to do, and completing and submitting the return. Out-of-pocket costs include expenses such as purchasing tax software, paying a third-party preparer, and printing and postage. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs.
Total Monetized Burden = Total Out-of-Pocket Costs + Total Annual Monetized Time.
Amounts below are estimates for fiscal year (FY) 2025. Reported time and cost burdens are national averages and do not
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice by clicking on the following link
VA PRA information: Maribel Aponte, (202) 461-8900,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (hereinafter the Committee) will hold virtual meeting sessions on Thursday, September 26, 2024, and Friday, September 27, 2024. The meeting session will begin, and end as follows:
The meeting sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the VASRD, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation in the future.
On Thursday, September 26, 2024, through Friday, September 27, 2024, the agenda will include updates from
In addition, on Thursday, September 26, 2024, the public comment period will be open for 30-minutes from 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. EST. The public can also submit one-page summaries of their written statements for the Committee's review. Public comments may be received no later than Wednesday, September 18, 2024, for inclusion in the official meeting record. Please send these comments to Jadine Piper of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, at
Members of the public who wish to obtain a copy of the agenda should contact Jadine Piper at
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Final rule.
FinCEN is issuing a final rule to require certain persons involved in real estate closings and settlements to submit reports and keep records on certain non-financed transfers of residential real property to specified legal entities and trusts on a nationwide basis. Transfers made directly to an individual are not covered by this rule. This rule describes the circumstances in which a report must be filed, who must file a report, what information must be provided, and when a report is due. These reports are expected to assist the U.S. Department of the Treasury, law enforcement, and national security agencies in addressing illicit finance vulnerabilities in the U.S. residential real estate sector, and to curtail the ability of illicit actors to anonymously launder illicit proceeds through transfers of residential real property, which threatens U.S. economic and national security.
Effective December 1, 2025.
The FinCEN Regulatory Support Section at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at
Among the persons required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to maintain anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT)
Earlier this year, pursuant to the BSA's authority to impose AML regulations on persons involved in real estate closings and settlements, FinCEN proposed a new reporting requirement. Under the proposed rule, certain persons involved in real estate closings and settlements would be required to report on certain transfers that Treasury deems high risk for illicit financial activity—namely, non-financed transfers of residential real property to legal entities and trusts.
FinCEN is now issuing a final rule that adopts the proposed rule with some modifications. The final rule imposes a streamlined suspicious activity report (SAR) filing requirement under which reporting persons, as defined, are required to file a “Real Estate Report” on certain non-financed transfers of residential real property to legal entities and trusts. Transfers to individuals, as well as certain transfers commonly used in estate planning, do not have to be reported. The reporting person for any transfer is one of a small number of persons who play specified roles in the real estate closing and settlement, with the specific individual determined through a cascading approach, unless superseded by an agreement among persons in the reporting cascade. The reporting person is required to identify herself, the legal entity or trust to which the residential real property is transferred, the beneficial owner(s) of that transferee entity or transferee trust, the person(s) transferring the residential real property, and the property being transferred, along with certain transactional information about the transfer.
The final rule adopts a reasonable reliance standard, allowing reporting persons to rely on information obtained from other persons, absent knowledge of facts that would reasonably call into question the reliability of that information. For purposes of reporting beneficial ownership information in particular, a reporting person may reasonably rely on information obtained from a transferee or the transferee's representative if the accuracy of the information is certified in writing to the best of the information provider's own knowledge.
FinCEN has sought to minimize burdens on reporting persons to the extent practicable without diminishing the utility of the Real Estate Report to law enforcement and believes the final rule appropriately balances the collection of information that is highly useful to Treasury, law enforcement, and national security agencies against the burdens associated with collecting that information, particularly on small businesses.
The BSA is intended to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other illicit financial activity.
The BSA requires “financial institutions” to establish an AML/CFT program, which must include, at a minimum, “(A) the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; (B) the designation of a compliance officer; (C) an ongoing employee training program; and (D) an independent audit function to test programs.”
In particular, section 5318(g) of the BSA authorizes the Secretary to require financial institutions to report, via SARs, any “suspicious transactions relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.”
Most transfers of residential real estate are associated with a mortgage loan or other financing provided by financial institutions subject to AML/CFT program requirements. As non-financed transfers do not involve such financial institutions, such transfers can be and have been exploited by illicit actors of all varieties, including those that pose domestic threats, such as persons engaged in fraud or organized crime, and foreign threats, such as international drug cartels, human traffickers, and corrupt political or business figures. Non-financed transfers to legal entities and trusts heighten the risk that such transfers will be used for illicit purposes. Numerous public law enforcement actions illustrate this point.
Indeed, since 2016, FinCEN has used a targeted reporting requirement—the Residential Real Estate GTOs—to collect information on a subset of transfers of residential real estate that FinCEN considers to present a high risk for money laundering.
The Residential Real Estate GTOs have been effective in identifying the risks of non-financed purchases of residential real estate by providing relevant information about such transfers to law enforcement within specified geographic areas. Indeed, FinCEN regularly receives feedback from law enforcement partners that they use the information to generate new investigative leads, identify new and related subjects in ongoing cases, and support prosecution and asset forfeiture efforts. Law enforcement has also made requests to FinCEN to expand the Residential Real Estate GTOs to new geographic areas, which FinCEN has done multiple times, adding both additional metropolitan areas and methods of payment. This has provided law enforcement with additional insight into the risks in both the luxury and non-luxury residential real estate markets.
The Residential Real Estate GTOs have also proven the benefit of having reports identifying high risk residential real estate transfers housed in the same database as other BSA reports, such as traditional SARs and currency transaction reports (CTRs). For example, housing reports filed under the Residential Real Estate GTOs in the same database as other BSA reports enables FinCEN to cross-reference identifying information across reports, and having done so, FinCEN has been able to determine that a substantial proportion of purchases reported under the Residential Real Estate GTOs have been conducted by persons also engaged in other activity that financial institutions have characterized as suspicious. Specifically, FinCEN has found that from 2017 to early 2024, approximately 42 percent of non-financed real estate transfers captured by the Residential Real Estate GTOs were conducted by individuals or legal entities on which a SAR has been filed. In other words, individuals engaging in a type of transaction known to be used to further illicit financial activity—the non-financed purchase of residential real estate through a legal entity—are also engaging in other identified forms of suspicious activities. The ability to connect these activities across reports allows law enforcement to efficiently identify potential illicit actors for investigation and build out current investigations.
The Residential Real Estate GTOs, while effective within the covered geographic areas, do not address the illicit finance risks posed by certain real estate transfers on a nationwide basis—a significant shortcoming. For instance, a study of money laundering through real estate in several countries by Global Financial Integrity, a non-profit that studies illicit financial flows, money laundering, and corruption, found that, of Federal money laundering cases involving real estate between 2016 and 2021, nearly 61 percent involved at least one transfer in a county not covered by the Residential Real Estate GTOs. FinCEN believes that money laundering through real estate is indeed a nationwide problem that jurisdictionally limited reporting requirements are insufficient to address.
On February 16, 2024, FinCEN published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a reporting requirement to address the risks related to non-financed transfers of residential real estate to either a legal entity or trust on a nationwide basis.
In the NPRM, FinCEN proposed that certain persons involved in residential real estate closings and settlements file a version of a SAR—referred to as a “Real Estate Report”—focused exclusively on certain transfers of residential real property. The persons subject to this reporting requirement were deemed reporting persons for purposes of the proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, a reporting person would be determined through a “cascading” approach based on the function performed by the person in the real estate closing and settlement. The proposed cascade was designed to minimize burdens on persons involved in real estate closings and settlements, while leaving no reporting gaps and creating no incentives for evasion.
As proposed, information to be reported in the Real Estate Report would identify the reporting person, the legal entity or trust (including any legal arrangement similar in structure or function to a trust) to which the residential real property was transferred, the beneficial owners of that transferee entity or transferee trust, the person that transferred the residential real property, and the property being transferred, along with certain transactional information about the transfer. Regarding beneficial ownership information that a reporting person would be required to report, the rule proposed that a reporting person could collect such information directly from a
In response to the NPRM, FinCEN received 621 comments, 164 of which were unique. Submissions came from a broad array of individuals, businesses, and organizations, including trade associations, transparency groups, law enforcement representatives, and other interested groups and individuals.
General support for the rule was expressed by law enforcement officials, transparency groups, certain industry associations, and individuals. For instance, attorneys general of 25 states and territories jointly submitted a comment stating that the proposed regulations would permit Federal, State, and local law enforcement to access information about suspicious real estate transfers more efficiently because that information would all be available from a single source, and that the information would aid them in identifying suspicious residential real estate transfers on a nationwide basis that might otherwise remain undetected. These attorneys general and one industry association applauded FinCEN's choice to use a transaction-specific reporting mechanism rather than imposing an AML/CFT program requirement on persons involved in real estate closings and settlements. One non-profit commenter expressed support for FinCEN's recognition of the wide-ranging impacts that money laundering through real estate can have on tenants, homebuyers, and the affordability and stability of regional housing markets and believed the rule will improve housing access. Two industry associations expressed strong support for the proposed rule, with one commenter expressing the view that it reflected a pragmatic approach. One industry association and an individual commenter stated that a permanent and nationwide rule would provide greater predictability and certainty to industry than Residential Real Estate GTOs.
Other commenters expressed opposition to the proposed rule. Some expressed concern about FinCEN's legal authority to impose a reporting requirement in the manner set forth in the proposed rule. Other commenters argued that the proposed reporting requirement would be ineffective, burdensome, or would require reporting of information that is reported to the government through other avenues. The majority of private sector commenters—primarily small businesses, individuals employed in the real estate industry, and certain trade associations—asserted that the proposed reporting requirements are too broad and complex and would be burdensome to implement. They further assert that this would result in increased costs for businesses and, ultimately, consumers, potentially delaying closings and causing consumers to decline to seek their services. Many of these commenters expressed concerns that the proposed regulations, if finalized without significant change, would impose numerous and costly reporting and recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. Some commenters suggested the proposed rule would put large businesses at a competitive disadvantage while others suggested the same about small businesses. These commenters also suggested that the proposed regulation would create privacy and security concerns with respect to personally identifiable information. A number of these commenters suggested that FinCEN either not issue a final regulation or adopt a narrower approach, requiring reporting of less information on fewer transfers. Several commenters suggested that attorneys that fulfill any of the functional roles set out in the reporting cascade should not be required to report, primarily due to concerns about attorney-client privilege and confidentiality requirements.
Furthermore, many commenters suggested a range of modifications to the proposed regulations to: enhance clarity; reduce the potential burdens to industry; include or exclude certain professions from reporting requirements; refine the impact to certain segments of the industry; and enhance the usefulness of the resulting reports. Several commenters also asked hypothetical questions that sought clarification on the application of the proposed rule to certain situations.
FinCEN carefully reviewed and considered each comment submitted, and a more detailed discussion of comments appears in Section III. FinCEN believes that the regulatory requirements set out in this final rule reflect the appropriate balance between ensuring that reports filed under the rule have a high degree of usefulness to law enforcement and minimizing the compliance burden incurred by businesses, including small businesses. As detailed in Section III, FinCEN has made several amendments to the proposed rule that are responsive to commenters and that may also reduce certain anticipated burdens.
FinCEN is issuing a final rule that generally adopts the framework set out in the proposed rule but makes certain modifications and clarifications that are responsive to comments. The final rule imposes a reporting requirement on “reporting persons” that are involved in certain kinds of transfers of residential real property. In response to comments, the rule adopts a reasonable reliance standard, allowing reporting persons to, in general, reasonably rely on information obtained from other persons. FinCEN has also made other amendments in the final rule that are intended to clarify and simplify the reporting requirements, such as clarifying the definition of residential real property. Additionally, the rule excludes several additional transfers from needing to be reported, including one designed to exempt certain transfers commonly executed for estate and tax planning purposes. FinCEN also limited the requirement to retain certain records. We discuss these and other specific issues, comments, modifications, and clarifications in this section, beginning with issues that cut across the entire rule and continuing with a section-by-section analysis of changes and clarifications to the regulatory text, including sections for which FinCEN received no feedback from commenters.
FinCEN notes that it will consider issuing frequently asked questions (FAQs) and other guidance, as appropriate, to further clarify the application of the rule to specific circumstances. FinCEN also intends to continue to engage with stakeholders, for example through public outreach events, to assist with ensuring that the rule's requirements are understood by affected members of the public, including small businesses.
FinCEN received several comments that cut across various provisions of the rule or were otherwise broadly applicable. The subjects addressed by these comments include: FinCEN's authority to issue the rule; alternatives to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements; attorneys as reporting persons; the extent to which a reporting person can rely on information received from other persons; penalties for noncompliance; and the collection of unique identifying numbers. FinCEN
With regard to the comment concerning the relationship between the final rule and GLBA, FinCEN notes that information in reports filed under the BSA, which will include any information in a Real Estate Report, is exempt from the requirements of GLBA.
First, FinCEN does not believe that attorneys would violate their professional ethical obligations by filing a Real Estate Report. Although commenters noted that the ABA Model Rules on Professional Conduct generally require attorneys to keep client information confidential regardless of whether it is subject to the attorney-client privilege, Rule 1.6(b)(6) of the Model Rules states that “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary . . . to comply with other law or a court order.” The annotations to the Model Rules further elaborate that “[t]he required-by-law exception may be triggered by statutes, administrative agency regulations, or court rules.” FinCEN believes that the Real Estate Report falls squarely within the required-by-law exception described in Rule 1.6(b)(6).
Second, FinCEN believes that the information required in the Real Estate Report (
Similarly, FinCEN is not persuaded by commentors who argued that FinCEN lacks the authority to regulate attorneys under the BSA, claiming that the BSA does not clearly evince an intention to regulate attorneys. The BSA expressly authorizes regulation of “persons involved in real estate closings and settlements,” and it is common for such persons to be attorneys. Congress thus made clear its intention to authorize regulation of functions commonly performed by attorneys, and it would be anomalous to regulate those functions only when performed by non-attorneys. FinCEN also notes that attorneys are not exempt from submitting reporting forms to FinCEN in other contexts in which they are not explicitly identified by statute, such as with FinCEN Form 8300, which must be submitted by any “[a]ny person . . . engaged in a trade or business.” All courts of appeals that have considered the question have concluded that Form 8300 reporting requirements do not per se violate the attorney-client privilege and that attorneys must file such a form absent certain narrow exceptions.
To resolve these concerns, commenters suggested that reporting persons should be able to rely on information provided by the transferee or that the transferee should certify the accuracy of required information beyond beneficial ownership information. One industry group took the reliance standard a step further, suggesting that the reporting person be able to rely on the representations of the transferee for purposes of determining whether the transferee is an exempt entity or trust. One transparency group suggested that the final rule require that reporting persons perform a “clear error” or “best efforts” check to ensure they are not reporting obviously fraudulent information.
Some commenters suggested that, where a transferee is unwilling to provide complete or accurate information, reporting persons should be allowed to file incomplete forms, with some arguing that “good faith attempts” to file reports that are ultimately incomplete should not be penalized. Another argued that the reporting person should be able to simply file the information provided without any responsibility for its accuracy or completeness. However, one transparency group argued that reporting persons should not be allowed to file incomplete forms and that the final rule should clarify that, where a reporting person cannot gather complete information from a transferee, then the reporting person should decline to take part in the real estate transfer. Other commenters similarly questioned whether a reporting person can continue to facilitate a transfer if the transferee refuses to cooperate in providing reportable information. Additionally, one industry group requested that the final rule impose a clear duty on other persons described in the reporting cascade to share information reportable under the proposed rule.
This reasonable reliance standard is slightly more limited when a reporting person is reporting beneficial ownership information of transferee entities or transferee trusts. As expressed in the proposed rule, and as adopted in the final rule, when a reporting person is collecting the beneficial ownership information of transferee entities and transferee trusts. In those situations, the reasonable reliance standard applies only to information provided by the transferee or the transferee's representative and only if the person providing the information certifies the accuracy of the information in writing to the best of their knowledge.
FinCEN recognizes the necessity of permitting reliance on information supplied to the reporting person, considering the time and effort it would take for the reporting person to verify each piece of information independently. FinCEN believes that the reasonable reliance standard is significantly less burdensome than an alternative full verification standard, while still ensuring that obviously false or fraudulent information would not be reported.
As an example, FinCEN expects that the reporting person would be able to reasonably rely on the accuracy of a person's address provided orally or in writing, without reviewing government-issued documentation such as a drivers' license, provided the reporting person does not have reason to question the information provided (
As an additional example, in the context of ascertaining whether particular transfers are “non-financed transfers,”
In response to the comment requesting that FinCEN permit the filing of an incomplete report, FinCEN declines to add language to the regulation to provide for that option. FinCEN believes that allowing for the submission of incomplete reports could make it easier for transferees to avoid reporting requirements while simultaneously also making it difficult for FinCEN to ensure compliance with the rule. It could also greatly reduce the reports' utility to law enforcement. FinCEN believes the adoption of the reasonable reliance standard addresses many of the concerns expressed about access to reportable information.
Finally, FinCEN does not adopt the suggestion that a legal duty be imposed on other persons in the reporting cascade to share reportable information with the reporting person. FinCEN believes that the reasonable reliance standard will make the sharing of information easier and therefore will decrease potential friction among the persons described in the reporting cascade. Further, FinCEN believes that reporting persons are unlikely to perform the function described in the reporting cascade until they have either obtained the required information or are reasonably certain that they will be able to obtain it soon after the date of closing. If information cannot be obtained from a person in the reporting cascade, the reporting person would reach out directly to a relevant party to the transfer (
FinCEN notes that there is no exception from reporting under the final rule should a transferee fail to cooperate in providing information about a reportable transfer. The final rule does not authorize the filing of incomplete reports, and a reporting person who fails to report the required information about a reportable transfer could be subject to penalties. However, FinCEN will consider issuing additional public guidance to assist the financial institutions subject to these regulations in complying with their reporting obligations.
While FinCEN continues to acknowledge that IRS TINs are subject to heightened privacy concerns and that the collection of such information could entail cybersecurity and operational risks, several factors weighed heavily in its decision to retain this requirement. TINs are commonly required on other BSA reports, including, for example, Forms 8300, which FinCEN notes are commonly filed by the real estate industry. Furthermore, TINs are frequently necessary to identify the same actors, particularly those with similar names or those using aliases, across different BSA reports and investigations. FinCEN believes that nearly all reporting persons—primarily businesses performing functions typically conducted by settlement companies, including many that already file reports containing TINs with the government—will have preexisting data security systems and programs to protect information such as TINs, particularly since such information is often collected in the course of financed transfers of residential real estate.
FinCEN did not receive any comments to the general paragraph of the proposed rule found in proposed 31 CFR 1031.320(a), which provided a framework for the rule. That paragraph has been adopted in the final rule without substantial change. The technical changes that have been made include the renumbering of paragraph references, the addition of a reference to a new paragraph discussing the concept of reasonable reliance, and certain clarifying changes, such as the addition of language clarifying that reports required under this section and any other information that would reveal that a reportable transfer has been reported are not confidential.
The proposed rule defined a reportable transfer as a non-financed transfer of any ownership interest in residential real property to a transferee entity or transferee trust, with certain exceptions. These proposed exceptions, found in 31 CFR 1031.320(b), reflected FinCEN's intent to capture only higher risk transfers. The proposed rule provided that transfers would be reportable irrespective of the value of the property or the dollar value of the transaction; there was no proposed dollar threshold for a reportable transfer. The proposed rule also provided that transfers would only be reportable if a reporting person is involved in the transfer and if the transferee is either a legal entity or trust. Transfers between individuals would not be reportable.
Furthermore, two commenters suggested that the proposed definition of residential real property lacked clarity, with one focusing on the treatment of mixed-use property and the other requesting that the definition provide clearer criteria, taking into account the treatment of residential real estate under tax law, zoning processes, and mortgage agreements, with examples provided. Another commenter suggested that FinCEN provide a non-exhaustive list of possible transfers intended to be subject to reporting requirements and that the list specifically include any transfer of ownership and any creation of an equitable interest, whether in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, in the property. One commenter requested clarity as to whether a transfer of residential real property as defined under the rule includes assignment contracts.
The revised definition addresses the difficulty raised by commenters in determining whether vacant or unimproved land is zoned or permitted for residential use by focusing on whether the transferee intends to build on the property a structure designed principally for occupancy by one to four families. Furthermore, the new provision added to the rule concerning reasonable reliance permits the reporting person to reasonably rely on information provided by the transferee to determine such intent. To address comments that requested clarity on whether mixed-use property qualifies as residential real property, the definition of residential real property also clarifies that separate residential units within a building, such as individually owned condominium units, as well as entire buildings designed for occupancy by one to four families, are included.
Taking into account the above changes, the definition of residential real property is now: (1) real property located in the United States containing a structure designed principally for occupancy by one to four families; (2) land located in the United States on which the transferee intends to build a structure designed principally for occupancy by one to four families; (3) a unit designed principally for occupancy by one to four families within a structure on land located in the United States; or (4) any shares in a cooperative housing corporation for which the underlying property is located in the United States. Given the ability for a reporting person to reasonably rely on information obtained from other persons, FinCEN declines to adopt the other suggestions made by some of the commenters to facilitate the determination of whether the property is residential in nature. FinCEN further notes that the definition is meant to include property such as single-family houses, townhouses, condominiums, and cooperatives, including condominiums and cooperatives in large buildings containing many such units, as well as entire apartment buildings designed for one to four families. Furthermore, transfers of such properties may be reportable even if the property is mixed use, such as a single-family residence that is located above a commercial enterprise.
FinCEN also notes that the rule is not designed to require reporting of the transfer of contractual obligations other than those demonstrated by a deed or, in the case of a cooperative housing corporation, through stock, shares, membership, certificate, or other contractual agreement evidencing ownership. Therefore, the transfer of an interest in an assignment contract would not be reportable. Assignment contracts typically involve a wholesaler contracting with homeowners to buy residential real property and then assigning their rights in the contract to a person interested in owning the property as an investment. The eventual purchase of the property by the assignee investor may be reportable under this rule because a transfer of an ownership interest demonstrated by a deed has occurred, but the initial signing of the contract between the assignor and the original homeowner would not be reportable.
Two transparency organizations requested that FinCEN clarify whether partially financed transfers are reportable. These commenters cited as examples a situation in which some or all of the source of funds originate from entities or beneficial owners that have not undergone AML checks from a covered financial institution or where qualified credit is extended to some, but not all, beneficial owners of transferees. Finally, one commenter requested clarity as to how the reporting person would determine if the transfer is non-financed.
In regards to requests for clarity about whether partially financed transfers meet the definition of a non-financed transfer, FinCEN notes that partially financed transfers involving one transferee (for example, in which the transferee entity or transferee trust puts down a 50 percent down payment but obtains a mortgage to finance the rest of the transfer) would not be reported. However, the definition of a non-financed transfer would result in reporting of transfers in which there are multiple transferee entities or transferee trusts receiving the property and financing is secured by some, but not all, of the transferees.
As to the comment questioning how reporting persons would determine whether a transfer is non-financed, it has been FinCEN's experience with the Residential Real Estate GTOs that persons required to report have readily determined whether a given financial institution extending financing has such AML program obligations by asking the financial institution directly. The reporting person can reasonably rely on the representations made by the financial institution.
However, FinCEN received several comments suggesting that FinCEN clarify or otherwise amend certain other exceptions, including those proposed for death, divorce, and bankruptcy. Two legal associations proposed that FinCEN clarify the exception for transfers that are the result of a death to ensure that the exception applies even if a transfer is not executed pursuant to a will or where the decedent is not technically the owner of the property at death because the property is owned by a revocable trust set up by the decedent. One legal association suggested that FinCEN expand the proposed exceptions for divorce, death, or bankruptcy to include transfers to certain specific types of trusts. One State bar association suggested that the rule build on the exceptions for death and divorce by excepting any transfers made in connection with a court-supervised legal settlement. A transparency organization recommended limiting the exceptions to transfers made to family members or heirs pursuant to divorce, probate proceedings, or a will, expressing concern that transfers resulting from death or divorce would remain at risk for money laundering.
Multiple commenters requested additional exceptions. Several commenters focused on exceptions for transfers to trusts used for estate or tax planning purposes. A State bar association requested the exclusion of transfers for estate planning purposes that involve no monetary consideration. One commenter suggested excepting gifts between family members, whether being transferred into a trust or legal entity, and in particular suggested excluding transfers to revocable trusts in which the trustee confirms by affidavit that the trustee or the settlor is the same person as the primary beneficiary. Similarly, another State bar association suggested that FinCEN except any intrafamily transfers and transfers into certain trusts created for estate or tax planning purposes, including revocable trusts, irrevocable trusts, irrevocable life insurance trusts, grantor trusts, purpose trusts, qualified personal residence trusts, pooled trusts, special needs and supplemental trusts, creditor protection trusts, various charitable trusts, certain State business trusts, and certain State business associations.
Some commenters suggested exceptions built around the relationship between the transferor and the transferee in the context of estate planning. Two such commenters requested that the final rule exclude any transfer where the transferor is the settlor of a transferee trust, because beneficial ownership of the property would remain the same. A State bar association suggested excluding transfers that include the creation of a self-settled revocable or irrevocable trust, wherein the grantor(s)/settlors(s) of the trust have created it for the benefit of the grantor(s) or members of their family, arguing that such trusts for the purposes of estate planning are low risk for money laundering, and therefore of little interest to FinCEN, and that their exclusion would reduce the number of reports required from reporting persons. In a similar vein, a State land title association suggested the exclusion of living trusts with the same name as the property owner, citing the example of an individual purchasing property in a non-financed transfer and then subsequently transferring the property to a trust for estate planning purposes. A trust and estate-focused legal association similarly suggested the exclusion of transfers to trusts in which at least one of the beneficial owners is the same as the transferor or in which the transfer is for the benefit of the family of the transferor. One legal association asked that exceptions be made for transfers in which there is no change in beneficial ownership of the property and two other commenters similarly requested that FinCEN exclude any transfers where the transferor is the managing or sole member of a transferee entity or is the settlor of a transferee trust. The legal association also suggested an exception when the ownership interest in the property remains within a family.
Two commenters suggested the exclusion of sequential transfers involving a trust. One described these sequential transfers as occurring when an individual purchases residential real property in their own name with a mortgage and subsequently transfers the property to a trust, or when an individual seeks to refinance property held in a trust by transferring title of the property from the trust to the individual, refinancing in the name of the individual, and then transferring title of the property back to the trust. Another commenter stated that properties held in revocable trusts for estate planning are often only removed from the trust for refinancing or taking on additional debt and therefore have oversight from those processing mortgage loans. Such transfers, argued the commenters, are low risk and would result in unnecessary and redundant reporting.
Some commenters suggested excepting transfers where the transferee or transferor is a qualified intermediary for the purposes of 26 U.S.C. 1031 (1031 Exchange), also known as a like-kind exchange. A national trade association for 1031 Exchange practitioners suggested adding an exception that would mirror the exception found in the BOI Reporting Rule for reporting of individuals acting as nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of another individual.
FinCEN also received a range of comments related to whether a dollar threshold should be included, below which reporting would not be required. In general, commenters representing transparency organizations supported the lack of a threshold in the proposed rule, with one commenter arguing that any threshold would provide a clear path for evasion. Other commenters—mostly real estate associations, businesses, or professionals—advocated for the inclusion of a threshold to reduce the number of reports that would need to be filed and avoid the reporting of transfers perceived as low risk for money laundering. One commenter suggested implementing a $1 threshold, others suggested $1,000, one suggested $10,000, and another suggested adopting the same threshold as FinCEN's Residential Real Estate GTOs.
First, in response to comments asking FinCEN to clarify the scope of the exception for transfers resulting from death, FinCEN has adopted language, set forth at 31 CFR 1031.320(b)(2)(ii), to clarify that the exception includes all transfers resulting from death, whether pursuant to the terms of a will or a trust, by operation of law, or by contractual provision. In the context of transfers resulting from death, transfers resulting by operation of law include, without limitation, transfers resulting from intestate succession, surviving joint owners, and transfer-on-death deeds, and transfers resulting from contractual provisions include, without limitation, transfers resulting from beneficiary designations. With respect to inclusion
Second, the rule adds an exception for any transfer supervised by a court in the United States at 31 CFR 1031.320(b)(2)(v). This exception builds on a commenter's suggestion to expand the list of exceptions to include transfers made in connection with a court-supervised legal settlement, but is focused on transfers required by a court instead of simply supervised by a court, which narrows the opportunity for such transfers to be abused by illicit actors. FinCEN believes that, like probate and divorce, transfers required as a result of judicial determination in the United States are generally publicly documented and subject to oversight and therefore are subject to a lower risk for money laundering.
Third, while FinCEN did not receive comments on the scope of the exception for transfers incident to divorce or the dissolution of marriage, FinCEN believes it is appropriate to clarify in the regulation that the exception also applies to the dissolution of civil unions and has done so at 31 CFR 1031.320(b)(2)(iii). Civil unions are similar to marriages with regard to property issues in form and function and are terminated in a similar manner—generally with the involvement of courts.
Fourth, in response to the comments requesting exceptions for estate planning techniques and for sequential transfers to trusts, an exception is added at 31 CFR 1031.320(b)(2)(vi) for transfers of residential real property to a trust where the transfer meets the following criteria: (1) the transfer is for no consideration; (2) the transferor of the property is an individual (either alone or with the individual's spouse); and (3) the settlor or grantor of the trust is that same transferor individual, that individual's spouse, or both of them. FinCEN expects that this addition will except many common transfers made for estate planning purposes described by commenters, including transfers described in the exception where the grantor or settlor's family are beneficiaries of the trust, as well as sequential transfers to trusts, such as where the qualified financing is extended to the grantor or settlor rather than to the trust itself and the grantor or settlor then is transferring the secured residential real property for no consideration to the trust.
FinCEN intended to scope this exception in a manner that was responsive to comments but that would not create an overly broad exception that would be open to significant abuse. To be sure, illicit actors are known to use estate planning techniques to obscure the ownership of residential real estate, and all non-financed transfers of residential real estate not subject to this rule are subject to less oversight from financial institutions than financed transfers and are therefore inherently more vulnerable to money laundering. However, transfers in which an individual who currently owns residential real property is funding their own trust with that property are believed to be a lower risk for money laundering because the true owner of the property is not obscured when the property is transferred. Given this limitation on the exception and how common it is for an individual to place residential real property into a trust, whether revocable or irrevocable, for estate planning purposes, FinCEN believes it is appropriate to except such transfers at this time. Additionally, the expanded exception benefits from relying on information readily available to the reporting person, as the reporting person will know the identity of the transferor and can ascertain, such as through a trust certificate, whether the transferor is the grantor or settlor of the trust.
FinCEN does not agree with some commenters that the exception should be broader by excepting transfers where beneficial ownership does not change or where the transfer is an intrafamily one. An exception for such transfers would be difficult for the reporting person to administer, as it would require a review of the dispositive terms of the trust instrument, and it would be difficult for the reporting person to assess the reliability of information provided to them about beneficial ownership or family relationships. FinCEN also does not agree that all such transfers are automatically low risk for money laundering, especially when consideration is involved. Overall, the adopted exception offers a low-risk, bright line that should be easy to understand and implement, lowering the burden on both industry and the parties to the transfer, when compared with the proposed rule.
FinCEN also does not believe that this same logic can be extended to justify excepting transfers of property by an individual to a legal entity owned or controlled by such individual, as some commenters suggested. In the exception described above concerning no consideration transfers to trusts, the exception applies when the transferor of residential real property is also the grantor or settlor of the trust—the identity of the grantor or settlor of the trust is a fact tied to the creation of the trust, is revealed on the face of the trust instrument, and generally cannot be changed. Although the trustee and beneficiaries of the trust may change over time, the identification of the settlor or grantor of the trust generally allows FinCEN to identify the source of the property being contributed to the trust, a factor that is critical to the identification and prevention of money laundering. That same identification and persistent connection with the transferor does not exist in the context of transfers of residential real property to a legal entity, where it is common for various owners of interests in the entity to each contribute assets to it.
Finally, the final rule adopts an exception, at 31 CFR 1031.320(b)(2)(vii), for transfers made to qualified intermediaries for purposes of effecting 1031 Exchanges. Such exchanges are commonly conducted to defer the realization of gain or loss, and, thus, the payment of any related taxes, for Federal income tax purposes.
The final rule does not adopt the suggestions to exclude corrective conveyances and additional insured endorsements, as FinCEN believes such exceptions are not necessary. Corrective conveyances are used to correct title flaws, such as misspelled names, and are not used to create a new ownership interest in a property. As such, corrective conveyances do not involve a transfer of residential real property and are therefore not reportable. Similarly, additional insured endorsements are used to extend coverage of title insurance to an additional party identified by the policyholder and do not meet the rule's definition of a reportable transfer of residential real property.
The final rule also does not adopt the suggestion to exclude foreclosure sales, although FinCEN notes that foreclosure court proceedings wherein a lender obtains a judgment to foreclose on property would be excluded under the exception for transfers required by a court in the United States. Outside of such court-supervised foreclosure proceedings, FinCEN does not agree that potential reporting persons involved in sales of foreclosed property should be treated differently from other transfers, as such sales, where the property is sold to a third party, do not necessarily present a lower risk for money laundering.
FinCEN also declines to implement the suggestion that the final rule collect information only on foreign transferee entities and trusts. Law enforcement investigations and FinCEN's experience with the Residential Real Estate GTOs have repeatedly confirmed that non-financed transfers of residential real estate to both foreign and domestic legal entities and trusts are high risk for money laundering.
Furthermore, the rule does not adopt suggestions to include a dollar threshold for reporting. Low value non-financed transfers to legal entities and trusts, including gratuitous ones for no consideration, can present illicit finance risks and are therefore of interest to law enforcement. Although the Residential Real Estate GTOs have had an evolving dollar threshold over the course of the program, ranging from over $1 million to the current threshold of $300,000, FinCEN's experience with administering the program and discussions with law enforcement shows that money laundering through real estate occurs at all price points. FinCEN believes that incorporation of a dollar threshold could move illicit activity into the lower priced market, which would be counter to the aims of the rule.
Several commenters suggested excluding living trusts. Three commenters suggested excluding transfers to irrevocable living trusts, arguing either that such trusts are low risk for money laundering or that such reporting is redundant with information received by the IRS. Some focused on revocable trusts, particularly those used for estate planning, arguing that they are subject to a lower risk of money laundering and that requiring reporting on such trusts would be burdensome given how commonly they are used.
Other commenters suggested the exclusion of specialized types of trusts. Two suggested excluding transfers to a qualified personal residence trust and another suggested excluding transfers to an intentionally defective grantor trust, charitable remainder trust, any qualified terminal interest property trust benefitting the contributing homeowner, testamentary trust, third-party common law discretionary trust, a discretionary support trust, or a trust for the support of an incapacitated beneficiary, including supplemental or special needs trusts, arguing that these transfers generally do not involve property purchased in cash within the last year and are low risk for money laundering.
FinCEN considered comments suggesting that it adopt additional exceptions from the definition of a transferee trust for specific types of trusts. In particular, comments suggested exceptions for all living trusts, all revocable trusts, or all irrevocable trusts, as well as more specialized types of trusts such as qualified personal residence trusts or defective grantor trusts. FinCEN believes that the suggested exceptions would be overly broad and, as such, would exclude from reporting certain transfers that pose a high risk for illicit finance. However, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of a trust arrangement, some of the aforementioned trusts may be covered under the more tailored exception for “no consideration transfers” to trusts described in Section III.C.2.c. We also note that certain trusts, such as testamentary trusts, are not captured by the reporting requirement, as such trusts are created by wills and therefore fall within the exception for transfers occurring as a result of death.
Proposed 31 CFR 1031.320(c) set forth a cascading reporting hierarchy to determine which person providing real estate closing and settlement services in the United States must file a report for a given reportable transfer. As an alternative, the persons described in the reporting cascade could enter into an agreement to designate a reporting person.
Associations representing real estate agents agreed with the absence in the cascade of functions typically associated with real estate agents, while two escrow industry commenters proposed including real estate agents as reporting persons. One commenter suggested adding appraisers as reporting persons, arguing that required inclusion of appraisers would help to identify potential market distortion by illicit actors and that appraisers are otherwise well-equipped to be reporting persons. That commenter also suggested that FinCEN require appraisals be included in every non-financed transfer. One industry association urged FinCEN to exempt small businesses from reporting altogether. One commenter asked for a clear exclusion for homeowners associations, arguing that their burden would be high. A transparency organization and an industry commenter suggested that FinCEN explicitly prohibit transferees, transferors, and their owners from being reporting persons.
Some commenters argued that certain functions described in the proposed reporting cascade should be moved further up in the cascade to ensure parties with what they viewed as the best access to information are the first-line reporters. One commenter suggested that 31 CFR 1031.320(c)(1)(iii) be modified to include the person who prepares a stock certificate or a
Two commenters noted that the reporting cascade may result in more than one reporting person in split settlements, in which the buyer and seller use separate settlement agents. One of those commenters also suggested that certain scenarios could result in the identification of multiple reporting persons, such as when transfers are closed by independent escrow companies but also involve title insurance or when an attorney performs the document preparation, document signing, and disbursement of funds in a transfer that also involves title insurance. Finally, one commenter noted that, in some locations, it is possible for title insurance to be issued several months after closing.
As set forth at 31 CFR 101.320(c)(3), FinCEN adopts the suggestion made by one commenter to exclude from the definition of a reporting person financial institutions with an obligation to maintain an AML program. Where a financial institution would have otherwise been a reporting person, the reporting obligation falls to the next available person described in the reporting cascade. The intent of this rulemaking is to address money laundering vulnerabilities in the U.S. real estate market, recognizing that most persons involved in real estate closings and settlements are not subject to AML program requirements. FinCEN considered imposing comprehensive AML obligations on such unregulated persons, but ultimately decided, as reflected in the final rule, to impose the narrower obligation of a streamlined SAR filing requirement. Financial institutions that already have an obligation to maintain AML programs, however, generally already have a SAR filing requirement that is more expansive than the streamlined reporting requirement adopted by this final rule. Therefore, FinCEN believes that it would not be appropriate at this time to add a streamlined reporting requirement to the existing obligations of a financial institution with an obligation to maintain an AML program. FinCEN also believes that the removal of financial institutions from the cascade of reporting persons will generally result in real estate reports simply being filed by others in the reporting cascade, not in those reports remaining unfiled.
FinCEN is not persuaded by commenters suggesting that other types of professionals should be added to or excluded from the cascade. Excluding categories of real estate professionals that execute functions listed in the reporting cascade based on their professional title or business size would result in a significant reporting loophole that illicit actors would exploit. FinCEN believes it is also unnecessary for the effectiveness of the reporting cascade to include additional functions, such as the provision of appraisal services or services that real estate agents typically provide to buyers and sellers. FinCEN believes that the reporting cascade, as adopted, will effectively capture high risk non-financed transfers of residential real estate and any additional functions would unnecessarily increase the complexity of the rule. Furthermore, real estate agents and appraisers usually perform their primary functions in advance of the actual closing or settlement and therefore generally do not perform a central role in the actual closing or settlement process, unlike real estate professionals performing the functions described in the reporting cascade. FinCEN believes that focusing the reporting cascade on functions more central to the actual closing or settlement is necessary to ensure the reporting person has adequate access to reportable information. Regarding homeowners associations, FinCEN believes that is not necessary to explicitly exempt them the definition of a reporting person because they do not traditionally play the roles enumerated in the reporting cascade.
FinCEN is also not persuaded by commenters' suggestion that the reporting obligation would affect or decrease the neutral position of settlement agents and escrow agents. These real estate professionals are “neutral” in that they have similar obligations to both the transferee and transferor and are therefore seen as an independent party acting only to facilitate the transfer, as opposed to a party acting primarily to advance the interests of just one of the parties to the transfer. The reporting obligation does not upset the balance between service to the transferee and transferor. It merely requires the professional to report additional information about the transfer.
FinCEN confirms that transferees, transferors, and their beneficial owners cannot be reporting persons unless they are engaged within the United States as a business in the provision of a real estate closing and settlement service listed in the reporting cascade, but declines to explicitly prohibit transferees, transferors, and their beneficial owners from being reporting persons when they do play these roles, as it would create an exploitable loophole in the reporting cascade, if such persons were the only real estate professionals involved in the transfer.
The final rule adopts clarifications proposed by commenters with respect to cooperatives. For cooperatives, the stock certificate is akin to a deed prepared for other types of residential real estate, and therefore FinCEN believes that it is appropriate to include these types of functions in the reporting cascade. However, FinCEN declines to modify the language for the person that files with the recordation office the deed or other instrument that transfers ownership of the residential real property, as requested by one commenter. FinCEN believes the proposed language clearly captures a person engaged as a business in the provision of real estate closing and settlement services that files the deed with the recordation officer. It would not include the individual clerk at the office who accepts the deed or other instrument.
In regard to concerns raised by a commenter about split settlements, the definition of “closing or settlement statement” found in 31 CFR 1031.320(n)(2) is modified in the final rule to make clarify that the closing or settlement statement is limited to the statement prepared for the transferee only. FinCEN does not agree that the other situations described by the commenter would result in multiple reporting persons being identified, given the inherent nature of the reporting cascade wherein the reporting responsibility flows down the cascade depending on the presence of a person performing each listed function.
The final rule does not adopt any changes to account specifically for title insurance purchased a significant period of time after a transfer of property. In those situations, FinCEN expects that the underwriting of title insurance would not be part of the closing or settlement process, and therefore another person in the reporting cascade would file the report. However, in the rare situation where there is no other person in the reporting
The final rule also does not allow for third-party vendors who are not described in the reporting cascade to be designated as a reporting person, as such vendors are not financial institutions that can be regulated by FinCEN; a reporting person could outsource the preparation of the form to a third-party vendor, but the ultimate responsibility for the completion and filing of the report would lie with the reporting person.
The final rule does not adopt the suggestion to completely align the collection of beneficial ownership information with that collected under the BOI Reporting Rule. While the two rules do align in the collection of the beneficial owner's name, date of birth, and address, they differ in two key respects: first, regarding the unique identifying number, the real estate rule relies largely on TINs instead of passport numbers; and second, the real estate rule collects citizenship information, while the BOI Reporting Rule does not. As discussed in Section III.B.6, TINs are a key piece of identifying information for purposes of the database that would hold Real Estate Reports, and other BSA reports typically require TINs for this reason. Furthermore, FinCEN believes that the collection of citizenship information is necessary in this context to better analyze the volume of illicit funds entering the United States via entities or trusts beneficially owned by non-U.S. persons and is a key element for ensuring that the implementation of this rule will enhance and protect U.S. national security. FinCEN notes that such citizenship information, along with TINs, are reported on traditional SARs. Finally, the rule does not incorporate the suggestion to require reporting of LEIs, for the reasons discussed in Section III.C.2.d with respect to information collected for transferee entities.
One commenter requested that the final rule retain the exception from beneficial ownership information reporting found in 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii) for nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents, while two other commenters requested that the rule should except reporting where a beneficial owner is a minor.
The information reported on a BOIR informs FinCEN about the reporting companies that have been formed or registered in the United States, while Real Estate Reports will inform FinCEN about the legal entities, some of which may be “reporting companies” within the meaning of the BOI Reporting Rule, that have participated in reportable real estate transfers that Treasury believes to be at high risk for money laundering. Real Estate Reports, by including beneficial ownership information and real estate transfer information in a single report, will enable law enforcement to investigate potential criminal activity in a timely and efficient manner, and will allow Treasury and law enforcement to connect money laundering through real estate with other types of illicit activities and to conduct broad money laundering trend analyses. BOIRs are kept secure but are intended to be made available not only to government agencies but to financial institutions for certain compliance purposes. Real Estate Reports will be subject to all of the protections and limitations on access and use that already apply to SARs.
The need for two different types of report, of course, does not mean that FinCEN is not concerned about eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort. FinCEN appreciates the suggestion that reporting persons be allowed to submit FinCEN Identifiers in lieu of collecting and submitting beneficial ownership information for legal entities that are considered reporting companies under the BOI Reporting Rule. However, FinCEN has identified a number of legal and operational limitations that would prevent FinCEN from accepting FinCEN identifiers outside of the CTA context.
With regard to the comments suggesting a more limited definition of a beneficial owner, FinCEN does not adopt the suggestion that beneficial owners of trusts be limited to trustees. The final rule instead adopts the approach in the proposed rule, which set forth several positions in a transferee trust that FinCEN considers to be occupied by the beneficial owners of the trust, including: the trustee; an individual other than a trustee with the authority to dispose of transferee trust assets; a beneficiary that is the sole permissible recipient of income and principal from the transferee trust or that has the right to demand a distribution of, or withdraw, substantially all of the assets from the transferee trust; a grantor or settlor who has the right to revoke the transferee trust or otherwise withdraw the assets of the transferee trust; and the beneficial owner(s) of any legal entity that holds at least one of these positions. The persons holding these positions have clear ownership or control over trust assets and therefore should be reported as beneficial owners of the trust.
For legal entities, 31 CFR 1031.320(n)(1)(i) continues to reference 31 CFR 1010.380(d) and therefore the final rule incorporates exceptions from the definition of beneficial owner of a reporting company; these exceptions include nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents, as well as minor children (when certain other information is reported). For transferee trusts, the definition of beneficial owner in 31 CFR 1031.320(n)(1)(ii) does not contain exceptions mirroring those found in the definition of a beneficial owner of a transferee entity. FinCEN considered adding an exception for minor children as suggested by commenters but believes at this time that such an exception is not appropriate for trusts. Trusts, unlike legal entities, are largely designed to transfer assets to family members such as minor children, and therefore the reporting of minor children will accurately reflect the nature of the trust and, in aggregate, will allow FinCEN to more accurately determine the risks related to trusts. FinCEN notes, however, that the definition of beneficial owner is unlikely to result in significant reporting of minor children, as minor children would fall into only one category of beneficial owner—as the beneficiary of the transferee trust, and only when the minor child is the beneficiary who is the sole permissible recipient of income and principal from the transferee trust.
To remedy these issues, commenters argued that payment information should instead be limited to either the total consideration or to the information readily available on wire instructions or a check. Some commenters suggested eliminating the reporting of payment information entirely, questioning the usefulness of reporting such information given that covered financial institutions are likely involved in the processing of such payments and that the reporting person may be separately required to report payment information on a Form 8300, and also raising concerns about the potential increased risk of fraud if detailed account information is required to be reported.
FinCEN appreciates commenters' concerns about potential risks associated with collecting and retaining detailed payment information in relation to reportable transfers and believes that the removal of the requirement to retain Real Estate Reports, in which personal information would be aggregated, for five years, as discussed in Section III.C.12, will help mitigate this risk.
The final rule adopts a reasonable reliance standard, set forth in 31 CFR 1031.320(j), that generally allows reporting persons, whether when reporting information required by the final rule or when necessary to make a determination to comply with the rule, to reasonably rely on information provided by other persons. This change from the proposed rule is explained in detail in Section III.B.4.
FinCEN believes that a filing period longer than adopted here would adversely impact the utility of the reports for law enforcement and that the extended filing period adopted in this final rule strikes the appropriate balance between accommodating commenters' concerns and ensuring timely reporting of transfers, particularly given other modifications and clarifications in this rule. In particular, FinCEN believes that the adoption of the reasonable reliance standard will significantly reduce the time needed to file the form compared to verifying the accuracy of each piece of information. FinCEN therefore declines to adopt the longer quarterly or annual suggested filing periods.
The final rule deletes as unnecessary the reference in proposed 31 CFR 1031.320(k) to the collection and maintenance of supporting documentation. In contrast with a traditional SAR requirement, the requirement to file a Real Estate Report does not require the reporting person to maintain records documenting the reasons for filing, and therefore there is no need to consider such documentation to have been deemed filed with the Real Estate Report, or to reference such documentation when discussing what a reporting person should file.
While FinCEN considered eliminating the record retention requirement in its entirety, it believes that it is necessary to the enforceability of the rule that reporting persons retain copies of documents that will not be filed with FinCEN—namely, a copy of any beneficial ownership information certification form and any designation agreement to which a reporting person is a party. Furthermore, FinCEN has retained the requirement in the proposed rule that all parties to a designation agreement—not just the reporting person—must retain a copy of such designation agreement, also to ensure enforceability of the rule. As previously stated, records that are required to be retained must be maintained for a period of five years.
Proposed 31 CFR 1031.320(m)(2) confirmed that the exemption from the requirement to establish an AML program, in accordance with 31 CFR 1010.205(b)(1)(v), would continue to apply to those businesses that may be reporting persons under the final rule. It also stated that no such exemption applies for a financial institution that is otherwise required to establish an anti-money laundering program, as provided in 31 CFR 1010.205(c).
• The definition of “closing or settlement statement” is limited to the statement prepared for the transferee, as discussed in Section III.C.3.a;
• The rule adds a definition for “Non-financed transfer” for clarity, as discussed in Section III.C.2.b;
• The rule is meant to be applied nationwide, and therefore the definition of “Recordation office” is modified to make clear that the recordation office may be located in a territory or possession of the United States, and is not limited to State, local, or Tribal offices for the recording of reportable transfers as a matter of public record. As a result, a person may be a reporting person if they file a deed or other instrument that transfers ownership of the residential real property with a recordation office located in any state, local jurisdiction, territory of possession of the United States, or Tribe;
• For clarity, the term “Residential real property” is removed from the list of definitions found in 31 CFR 1031.320(n) and is instead defined in 31 CFR 1031.320(b).
The remaining definitions are adopted as proposed.
However, FinCEN declines to adopt a phased approach to implementation of the rule, such as by initially limiting the reporting obligation to persons performing a limited number of functions described in the reporting cascade or phasing-in the rule geographically. FinCEN believes a phased approach would likely create unneeded complexity for industry, as industry would need to adapt processes and procedures multiple times over the implementation period. A phased implementation would also undermine the effectiveness of the rule for an extended period of time. The rule is intended to provide comprehensive reporting for a subset of high-risk residential real estate transfers; phased implementation may enable avoidance of reporting requirements by illicit actors, replicating some of the issues FinCEN has encountered under the Residential Real Estate GTOs.
If any of the provisions of this rule, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Indeed, the provisions of this rule can function sensibly if any specific provision or application is invalidated, enjoined or stayed. For example, if a court were to hold as invalid the application of the rule with respect to any category of potential reporting persons, FinCEN would preserve the reporting cascade approach for all other persons that perform the functions set out in the cascade. In such an instance, the provisions of the rule should remain in effect, as those provisions could function sensibly with respect to other potential reporting persons. Likewise, if a court were to hold invalid the application of the rule to any category of residential real property, as defined, the other categories should still remain covered. Because these categories operate independently from each other, the remainder of the rule's provisions could continue to function sensibly: a reportable transfer would continue to be a non-financed transfer of any ownership interest in the remaining categories of residential real property when transferred to a transferee entity or transferee trust. Similarly, with respect to transferee entities and transferee trusts, if a court were to enjoin FinCEN from enforcing the rule's reporting requirements as applied to, for example, transferee trusts, the reporting of transfers to transferee entities should continue because the two types of transferees are separate and distinct from one another. Thus, even if the transferee trust provisions were severed from the rule, the remaining portions of the rule could still function sensibly. In sum, in the event that any of the provisions of this rule, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, FinCEN has crafted this rule with the intention to preserve its provisions to the fullest extent possible and any adverse holding should not affect other provisions.
This regulatory impact analysis (RIA) evaluates the anticipated effects of the final rule in terms of its expected costs and benefits to affected parties, among other economic considerations, as required by EOs 12866, 13563, and 14094. This RIA also affirms FinCEN's original assessments of the potential economic impact on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and presents the expected reporting and recordkeeping burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Furthermore, it sets out the analysis required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
As discussed in greater detail below, the rule is expected to promote national security objectives and enhance compliance with international standards by improving law enforcement's ability to identify the natural persons associated with transfers of residential real property conducted in the U.S. residential real estate sector, and thereby diminish the ability of corrupt and other illicit actors to launder their proceeds through real estate purchases in the United States. More specifically, the collection of the transfer-specific SARs—Real Estate Reports—in a repository that is readily accessible to law enforcement and that contains other BSA reports is expected to increase the efficiency with which resources can be utilized to identify such natural persons, or beneficial owners, when they have conducted non-financed purchases of residential real
This RIA first describes the economic analysis FinCEN undertook to inform its expectations of the rule's impact and burden. That is followed by certain pieces of additional and, in some cases, more specifically tailored analysis as required by EOs 12866, 13563, and 14094, the RFA, the UMRA, and the PRA, respectively. Responses to public comments related to the RIA—regarding specific findings, assumptions, or expectations, or with respect to the analysis in its entirety—can be found in Sections VI.A.1.b and VI.C and have been previewed and cross-referenced throughout the RIA.
This final rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action” under Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as amended by 14094. The following assessment indicates that the rule may also be considered significant under Section 3(f)(1), as the rule is expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more.
As FinCEN articulated in the RIA of the NPRM, two problematic phenomena animate this rulemaking.
In completing the analysis to accompany the final rule, FinCEN took all submitted public comments to the NPRM into consideration. While the NPRM received over six hundred comment letters, fewer than 25 percent of those comments presented non-duplicate content and a smaller fraction still provided comment specifically with respect to the NPRM RIA. The proportion of comment letters with non-duplicate content represents highly geographically concentrated and geographically unique feedback, which may therefore limit the generalizability of those responses regarding baseline and burden-related elements to other regions of the country and other local real estate markets that do not face the same general housing market trends or state-specific legal constraints. Where FinCEN has declined to revise its original analysis in response to certain comments, an attempt has been made to provide greater clarification of the reasons underlying FinCEN's original methodological choices and expectations.
Numerous comment letters spoke to the anticipated burden of the rule, though there was substantial variation in parties' expectations about which participant in a reportable transfer would ultimately bear the financial costs. Some commenters expressed concern that, if required to serve as the reporting person, they would not be able to absorb the related costs. The majority of these commenters, however, did not offer any explanation for why they would therefore not opt to designate to another cascade member, though presumably the assumption may have been that no other cascade member might be willing to agree. This assumption may or may not be consistent with countervailing incentives other cascade members face in facilitating reportable transfers. Other commenters suggested that certain reporting persons might be forced to absorb a large proportion of the rule's costs due simply to their considerable market share in their particular industry. Additionally, a substantial fraction of those who commented on the burden of the rule signaled their expectation that to some degree the financial costs would ultimately be passed along to the transferee, the transferee's tenants, or to all housing market clients served by that potential reporting person.
For purposes of the economic analysis, FinCEN notes that there may be a meaningful distinction between the concept of being burdened, or affected, by the rule and bearing the cost of the
Separately, FinCEN notes that while the vast majority of comment letters spoke to at least one element of burden as a concern, very few provided competing estimates or alternative methods to quantify the expected burden of the proposed rule in its entirety. Many commenters, in fact, took FinCEN estimates as given when making their own arguments, suggesting that at least on some level, they found the estimates reasonably credible. In cases where commenters most strongly disagreed with the magnitude of FinCEN estimates (suggesting that FinCEN vastly underestimated the burden of the rule), it is unclear whether the same differences would persist in light of the clarifications and modifications to the proposed rule that have been made in the process of finalization. Given the divergence between what some commenters originally interpreted the rule to require of them and what the final rule would entail, a number of those concerns—including concerns related to the expected verification of information that are addressed by the reasonable reliance standard adopted in the final rule—may now be less pressing.
The primary revision that FinCEN has made to the RIA in response to commenters is with respect to wage estimates for the industry categories represented in the reporting cascade. In addition to updating wages to incorporate the BLS's most recent annual figures, FinCEN also elected to incorporate the 90th percentile wage values instead of the national average index values used in the NPRM RIA. This more conservative approach is meant to address certain commenter concerns that FinCEN's expected costs might underestimate the market wage rates reporting persons would need to pay, particularly because more reporting might occur in geographic areas where skilled labor commands higher compensation. Adopting this more conservative, higher wage rate approach does not reflect any change in FinCEN's expectations about the underlying burden of compliance with the rule.
A few comment letters suggested that FinCEN's analysis may have benefited from additional research activities, robustness tables, or analyses of distributional effects. While in principle FinCEN does not object to more, and more empirically robust, quantitative analysis of any of its policies, it is nevertheless unpersuaded that the analyses requested would have changed the conclusions those additional analytical activities would have informed. In none of the enumerated requests for additional analysis did the commenter convincingly substantiate how the findings of their requested items might have actionably changed the contours of the final policy without impairing its expected efficacy.
To assess the anticipated regulatory impact of the rule, FinCEN took several factors about the current state of the residential real estate market into consideration. This is consistent with established best practices and certain requirements
While there are no specific Federal rules that would directly and fully duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule, there are nevertheless components of the rule that mirror, or are otherwise consistent with, reporting and procedural requirements of existing FinCEN rules and orders, as well as those of other agencies. To the extent that a person would have previous compliance experience with these elements of the regulatory baseline, FinCEN expects that some costs associated with the rule would be lower because the incremental changes in behavior from current practices would be smaller. FinCEN reviews the most proximate components from these existing rules and orders in greater detail below.
Under the Residential Real Estate GTOs, covered title insurance companies are required to report: “(i) The dollar amount of the transaction; (ii) the type of transaction; (iii) information identifying a party to the transaction, such as name, address, date of birth, and tax identification number; (iv) the role of a party in the transaction (
As discussed above, FinCEN recognizes that the Residential Real Estate GTOs collect beneficial ownership information for certain non-financed purchases of residential real property by legal entities that meet or exceed certain dollar thresholds in select geographic areas. However, the Residential Real Estate GTOs are narrow in that they are temporary, location-specific, and limited in the transactions they cover. The rule is wider in scope of coverage and will collect additional useful and actionable information previously not available through the Residential Real Estate GTOs. As such, the nationwide reporting framework for certain residential real estate transfers will replace the current Residential Real Estate GTOs.
Some evidence suggests that, despite the restriction of reporting persons under the existing Residential Real Estate GTOs to title insurance companies only, certain additional categories of real estate professionals may already be familiar—and have experience—with gathering the currently required information. For example, FinCEN observes that in some markets presently covered by the Residential Real Estate GTOs, realtors and escrow agents often assist title insurance companies with their reporting obligations despite not being subject to any formal reporting requirements themselves. Some may even have multiple years' worth of guidance and informational support by the regional or national trade association of which they are a member in how best to facilitate and enable compliance with existing FinCEN requirements. For instance, in 2021, the National Association of Realtors advised that while “[r]eal estate professionals do
Furthermore, following the enactment of the CTA, beneficial ownership information of certain legal entities is required to be submitted to FinCEN. However, as set out in the NPRM preamble and also discussed above,
For example, FinCEN believes that a critical part of the rule is that it will alert law enforcement to the fact that a residential real estate transfer fitting within a known money laundering typology has taken place. While beneficial ownership information collected under the CTA may be available, that information concerns the ownership composition of a given entity at a given point in time. As such reporting does not dynamically extend to include information on the market transactions of the beneficially owned legal entity, it would not alert law enforcement officials focused on reducing money laundering that any real estate transfer has been conducted, which includes those particularly vulnerable to money laundering such as non-financed transfers of residential property.
Furthermore, the scope of entities that are the focus of the real estate rule is broader than the CTA, as certain types of entities, including most trusts, are not required to report under the CTA. Because non-excepted trusts under the residential real estate rule generally do not have an obligation to report beneficial ownership under the CTA, their incremental burden of compliance with the Real Estate Report requirements may be moderately higher insofar as the activities of collecting, presenting, or certifying beneficial ownership information are less likely to have already been performed for other purposes.
The CDD Rule's
Financial institutions subject to the CDD Rule are required to collect some beneficial ownership information from legal entities that establish new accounts. However, this rule covers non-financed transfers of residential real estate that do not involve financial institutions covered by the CDD Rule. The rule would also collect additional information relevant to the real estate transfers that is currently not collected under the CDD Rule.
In the course of current residential real estate transfers, some parties that might be deemed “transferors” under the rule already prepare and report portions of the requisite information to other regulators. For example, the IRS collects taxpayer information through Form 1099-S on seller-side proceeds from reportable real estate transfers for a broader scope of reportable real estate transfers than this rule.
However, IRS Form 1099-S is nonetheless relevant to the rule's regulatory baseline, given the process by which the Form 1099-S may be prepared and submitted to the IRS. Similar to the Real Estate Report, the person responsible for filing the IRS Form 1099-S can either be determined through a cascade of the various parties who may be involved in the closing or settlement process, or, alternatively, certain categories of the involved parties may enter into a written agreement at or before closing to designate who must file Form 1099-S for the transaction. The agreement must identify the designated person responsible for filing the form, but it is not necessary that all parties to the transaction, or that more than one party even, enter into the agreement. The agreement must: (1) identify by name and address the person designated as responsible for filing; (2) include the names and addresses of each person entering into the agreement; (3) be signed and dated by all persons entering into the agreement; (4) include the names and addresses of the transferor and transferee; and (5) include the address and any other information necessary to identify the property. The rule's designation agreement requires, and is limited to, the same five components that may be included in a designation agreement accompanying Form 1099-S. Therefore, the exercise of designation, as well as the collection of information and signatures that it involves, may already occur in connection with certain transfers of residential real property and in these cases be leveraged at minimal additional expense.
According to a recent study
Legal entities that own U.S. residential real estate vary by size and complexity of beneficial ownership structure, and by some measures, have increased market participation over time.
FinCEN did not receive any comments, studies, or data that meaningfully conflict with these estimates or the manner in which they informed the NPRM RIA's initial estimates of the number of reportable transfers per year.
The final rule requires the reporting of certain non-finance transfers of residential real property to transferee trusts.
Establishing a baseline population of potentially affected transferee trusts based on the existing population of legal trusts is challenging for several reasons. These reasons include the general lack of comprehensive and aggregated data on the number,
International heterogeneity in registration and reporting requirements for foreign trusts creates similar difficulties in assessing the population of potentially affected parties that are not originally registered in the United States. Further complicating this assessment is the exogeneity and unpredictability of changes to foreign tax and other financial policies, which studies in other, related contexts have shown, generally affect foreign demand for real estate.
While it is difficult to know exactly how many existing trusts there are, and within that population how many own residential real property (as a potential indicator of what proportion of new trusts might eventually be used to own residential real property), there is nevertheless a consistency in the limited existing empirical evidence that would support a conjecture that proportionally few of the expected reportable transfers would be likely to involve a transferee trust. A recent study of U.S. single-property residential purchases that occurred between 2015 and 2019 identified a trust as the buyer in 3.3 percent of observed transactions.
To the extent that trusts' current residential real property holdings are linear in the number of housing units and current holdings is a reliable proxy for future purchasing activity, FinCEN does not expect the proportion of reportable transfers involving a transferee trust to exceed 5 percent of potentially affected transfers. No further refinements to this upper-bound-like estimate, based on the number of existing trusts that may be affected, would be feasible without a number of additional assumptions about market behavior that FinCEN declines to impose in the absence of better/more data.
While the majority of public comments pertaining to trusts suggested that the number of affected trusts would be substantially higher than the original RIA had anticipated, FinCEN is not revising or updating its baseline
Exceptions to the general definitions of transferee entities and transferee trusts apply to certain highly regulated entities and trusts that are subject to AML/CFT program requirements or to other significant regulatory reporting requirements.
For example, PIVs that are investment companies and registered with the SEC under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 are excepted, while unregistered PIVs engaging in reportable transfers are not. Unregistered PIVs are instead required to provide the reporting person with specified information, particularly including the required information regarding their beneficial owners. FinCEN analysis of costs below continues to assume that any such unregistered PIV stood up for a reportable transfer would generally have, or have low-cost access to, the information necessary for filing Real Estate Reports. FinCEN expects that a PIV that is not registered with the SEC—which can have at maximum four investors whose ownership percent is or exceeds 25 percent (the threshold for the ownership prong of the beneficial ownership test for entities)—would likely either (1) be an extension of that large investor, or (2) have a general partner who actively solicited known large investors. In either case, the unregistered PIV is likely to have most of the beneficial ownership information that would be required to complete the Real Estate Report and access to the beneficial owner(s) to request the additional components of required information not already at hand. FinCEN did not receive any comments indicating that these expectations are unreasonable and thus continues to operate under these assumptions with respect to baseline costs.
Operating companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934's current and periodic reporting requirements, including certain special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and issuers of penny-stock, are also excepted transferees under this rule. FinCEN notes that the percent ownership threshold for beneficial ownership for SEC regulatory purposes is considerably lower than as defined in the CTA and related Exchange Act beneficial ownership-related disclosure obligations usually apply to more control persons at such a registered operating company.
Some commenters expressed concern that it might be difficult or burdensome for reporting persons to determine if a transfer might be exempt from reporting on the basis of the transfer being made to an excepted transferee. However, the final rule adopts a reasonable reliance standard, and therefore the reporting person may reasonably rely on information provided by others as described in Section III.B.2.4, including with respect to whether the transferee is exempt. Furthermore, should a reporting person nevertheless want to verify the excepted status of a transferee, FinCEN notes that the status of transferees as excepted pursuant to being registered with the SEC should be easily verifiable by a name search in the agency's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system, which can be queried using open access, publicly available search tools.
Because the reporting cascade is ordered by function performed, or service provided, rather than by defined occupations or categories of service providers,
The scope of residential real estate transfers that would be affected by the rule is jointly defined by the (1) the nature of the property transferred, (2) the financed nature of the transfer, and (3) the legal organization of the party to whom the property is transferred. For purposes of identification, the defining attribute for the nature of the property is that it is principally designed, or intended to become, the residence of one to four families, including cooperatives and vacant or unimproved land. Additionally, the property must be located in the United States as defined in the BSA implementing regulations.
Reportable transfers exclude all those in which the transferees receive an extension of credit from a financial institution subject to AML/CFT program and SAR Reporting requirements that is secured by the residential real property being transferred. Reportable transfers also exclude transfers associated with an easement, death, divorce, or bankruptcy or that are otherwise supervised by a court in the United States, as well as certain no consideration transfers to trusts, certain transfers related to 1031 Exchanges, and any transfer for which there is no reporting person.
On the basis of available data, studies, and qualitative evidence, subject to certain qualifying caveats about limitations in data availability, and in the absence of large, unforeseeable shocks to the U.S. residential housing market, FinCEN's NPRM analysis estimated that the number of reportable transfers would be between approximately 800,000 and 850,000 annually. FinCEN received a number of comment letters suggesting that this estimate is too low. However, because most arguments of this nature were made on the basis of an understanding that the rule would include several kinds of transfers that have since been explicitly excepted in the final rule, FinCEN is not increasing its estimates.
FinCEN took certain potentially informative aspects of the current market for residential real property into consideration when forming its expectations about the anticipated economic impact of the rule. Among other things, FinCEN considered trends in the observable rate of turnover in the stock of existing homes. Additionally, FinCEN reviewed recent studies and data from the academic literature estimating housing supply elasticities on previously developed versus newly developed land.
FinCEN also considered recent survey results of the residential real estate holdings of high-net-worth individuals and the proportion of survey respondents who self-reported the intent to purchase additional residential real estate in the coming year. Further, FinCEN reviewed studies of trends in the financing and certain distributional characteristics of shared equity housing, which includes co-operatives that will be affected by the rule.
FinCEN assessed the role of various persons in the real estate settlement and closing process to determine a quantifiable estimate of each profession or industry's overall participation in that process. Accordingly, FinCEN conducted research based on publicly available sources to assess the general participation rate of the different types of reporting persons in the rule's reporting cascade. As part of its analysis, FinCEN noted a recent blog post citing data from the American Land Title Association (ALTA) that 80 percent of homeowners purchase title insurance when buying a home.
To better understand the distribution of the other types of persons providing residential real property transfer services to the transfers that are affected by the rule, FinCEN utilized county deed database records to approximate a randomly selected and representative sample of residential real estate transfers across the United States. FinCEN made efforts to collect deed data that reflected a representative, nation-wide sample, both in terms of the number and geographic dispersion of deeds, but acknowledges selection was nevertheless constrained in part by the feasibility to search by deed type, among other factors. FinCEN invited public feedback on the extent to which the same analysis would yield substantively different results if performed over a larger sample (with either more geographic locations, more
The final analysis included 100 deeds, of which 97 involved at least one of the following potential reporting persons: (i) Title Abstract and Settlement Offices, (ii) Direct Title Insurance Carriers, or (iii) Offices of Lawyers. A candidate reporting person was deemed to be involved with the creation of the deed if either (i) a company or firm performing one of these functions was included on the deed or (ii) an individual performing or employed by a company or firm performing one of these functions was included on the deed. FinCEN assessed the distribution of alternative entities identified on the remaining deeds, categorizing by reporting person type. Based on this qualitative analysis, FinCEN tentatively anticipates that approximately three percent of reportable transfers might have a reporting person or reporting cascade that begins with someone other than a settlement agent, title insurer, or attorney.
Currently, law enforcement searches a variety of State and commercial databases (that may or may not include beneficial ownership information), individual county record offices, and/or use subpoena authority to trace the suspected use of criminal proceeds in the non-financed transfer of residential real estate. Even after a significant investment of resources, the identities of the beneficial owners may not be readily ascertainable. This fragmented and limited approach can slow down and decrease the overall efficacy of investigations into money laundering through real estate. This was one reason that FinCEN introduced the Residential Real Estate GTOs, which law enforcement has reported have significantly expanded their ability to investigate this money laundering typology. At the same time, the Residential Real Estate GTOs have certain restrictions that limited its usefulness nationwide. This rule builds on and is intended to replace the Residential Real Estate GTO framework and creates reporting and recordkeeping requirements for specific residential real estate transfers nationwide.
The final rule requires certain persons involved in real estate closings and settlements to submit reports and keep records on identified non-financed transfers of residential real property to specified legal entities and trusts on a nationwide basis. The rule does not require transfers to be reported if the transfer is financed, meaning that the transfer involves an extension of credit to all transferees that is secured by the transferred residential real property and is extended by a financial institution that has both an obligation to maintain an AML program and an obligation to report suspicious transactions under this chapter. It also does not require reporting of: (i) a grant, transfer, or revocation of an easement; (ii) a transfer resulting from the death of an owner of residential real property; (iii) a transfer incident to divorce or dissolution of a marriage or civil union; (iv) a transfer to a bankruptcy estate; (v) a transfer supervised by a court in the United States; (vi) a transfer for no consideration made by an individual, either alone or with the individual's spouse, to a trust of which that individual, that individual's spouse, or both of them, are the settlor(s) or grantor(s); (vii) a transfer to a qualified intermediary for purposes of a 1031 Exchange; or (viii) a transfer that does not involve a reporting person. A report would also not need to be filed if the transferee is an exempt legal entity or trust, which are generally highly-regulated.
The final rule requires a reporting person, as determined by either the reporting cascade or as pursuant to a designation agreement, to complete and electronically file a Real Estate Report. The reporting person may generally obtain, and reasonably rely upon, information needed to complete the Real Estate Report from any other person. This reasonable reliance standard is more limited for purposes of obtaining the transferee's beneficial ownership information. In those situations, the reasonable reliance standard applies only to information provided by the transferee or the transferee's representative and only if the person providing the information certifies the accuracy of the information in writing to the best of their knowledge. The reporting person must file the report by the final day of the following month after which a closing took place, or 30 days after the date of the closing, whichever is later.
The final rule requires the reporting person to report to FinCEN certain information about a reportable transfer of residential real property. This includes information on the reporting person, the transferee and its beneficial owners, the transferor, the property being transferred, and certain payment information. The collected information will be maintained by FinCEN in an existing database accessible to authorized users. Some commenters' remarks suggest that certain expectations of the rule's potential effects may flow from a misunderstanding about who may access Real Estate Report data once filed and how it may be used. FinCEN is therefore reiterating that both access and use of Real Estate Report data will be subject to the same restrictions as other BSA reports, including traditional SARs.
This section describes the main, quantifiable economic effects FinCEN anticipates the various affected parties identified above may experience. Because the primary expected value of the rule is in the extent to which it is able to address or ameliorate the economic problems discussed under the RIA's broad economic considerations, which (while substantial) is generally inestimable, no attempt is made to quantify the net benefit of the rule. Instead, the remainder of this section focuses primarily on the estimates of reasonably anticipated, calculable costs to affected parties. While FinCEN continues to principally anticipate aggregate cost estimates between approximately $267.3 million and $476.2 million in the first compliance year and current dollar value of the aggregate costs in subsequent years between approximately $245.0 million and $453.9 million annually, it has provided revised estimates throughout the remaining analysis, responsive to public comments, that reflect more conservative expectations about the cost of labor. Under these assumptions, the anticipated costs of the rule would be between approximately $428.4 and $690.4 million (midpoint $559.4 million) in the first compliance year and between approximately $401.2 and $663.2 million (midpoint $532.2 million) (current dollar value) in subsequent years. These quantified costs are a pro forma accounting cost estimate only and are not expected to represent either the full economic costs of the rule nor the net cost of the rule as measured against the components of expected benefits that may become quantifiable. As previously stated, the ability to successfully detect, prosecute, and deter crimes—or other illicit activities that rely on money laundering to be
To estimate expected training costs, FinCEN adopted a parsimonious model similar, in certain respects, to the methodology used by FinCEN when publishing the RIA for the 2016 CDD Rule (CDD Rule RIA). Taking into consideration, however, that, unlike covered financial institutions under the CDD Rule, only one group of affected reporting persons has direct pre-existing experience with other FinCEN reporting and compliance requirements, the estimates of anticipated training time here are revised upward from the CDD Rule RIA to 75 minutes for initial training and 30 minutes for annual refresher training. FinCEN's method of estimation assumes that an employee who has received initial training once will then subsequently take the annual refresher training each following year. This assumption contemplates that more than half of the original training would not be firm-specific and remains useful to the employee regardless of whether they remain with their initial employer or change jobs within the same industry. As in the CDD Rule RIA high estimate model, FinCEN estimates that two-thirds of untrained employees receive the initial (lengthier) training each year. However, because the initial training is assumed to provide transferrable human capital in this setting, turnover is not relevant to the assignment to initial training in periods following Year 1. Thus, in the revised model, FinCEN calculated annual training costs as the combination of the expected costs of providing two-thirds of the previously untrained workforce per industry with initial (lengthier) training and all previously trained employees with the refresher (shorter) training. Time costs are proxied by an industry-specific fully loaded wage rate at the 90th percentile per industry.
To model industry-specific hiring inflows in periods following Year 1, FinCEN converted the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projected 10-year cumulative employment growth rates for 2022-2032 for the NAICS code mostly closely associated with a given industry available. Additionally, inflation data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis was utilized to estimate annual wage growth given the opportunity cost of training is assumed to be equivalent to the wage of employees. Utilizing these inputs, and summing costs across all industries expected to be affected, FinCEN estimates that the aggregate initial year training costs would be approximately $51.0 million dollars and the undiscounted aggregate training costs in each of the subsequent years would range between approximately $23.2 and $31.5 million.
FinCEN notes that fewer than five percent of unique comments received made specific reference to the training costs that the rule would necessitate and fewer still provided comments pertaining to the RIA estimates of training costs. While one commenter suggested that the uniformity of the rule would reduce the burden of preparing training materials relative to the current variety of Residential Real Estate GTO thresholds and applications, the majority of training cost-related comments simply noted that training costs would impose a burden and might separately lead to higher labor costs if new personnel require compensation for additional reporting compliance related subject-matter expertise. There were, however, some commenters who expressed a belief that the amount of time needed for—and frequency of—training needed to adequately prepare staff for compliance would be higher. While FinCEN is declining to responsively adjust its estimates of training-related time costs for reasons, among others, that are further discussed below, FinCEN is responsive to certain other commenters who expressed a perceived value to having a greater range of potential burden estimates to compare: had FinCEN adopted the suggested alternative training time costs, the aggregate annual training burden would have been either $81.5 million in year 1
In its NPRM analysis, FinCEN recognized that the rule would impose certain costs on businesses positioned to provide services to non-financed transfers of residential real property even in the absence of direct participation in a specific reportable transfer, including the costs of preparing informational material and training personnel about the proposed rule generally as well as certain firm-specific policies and procedures related to reporting, complying, and documenting compliance. Because this training burden was applied uniformly across all potentially affected occupational categories represented in the reporting cascade, which is already a conservative assumption given that some cascade tiers are, in practice, more likely to become the reporting person than others, FinCEN considered time burden
The total costs associated with reporting a given reportable transfer will likely vary with the specific facts and circumstances of the transfer. For instance, the cost of the time needed to prepare and file a report could differ depending on which party in the cascade is the reporting person, because parties receive different compensating wages. The costs associated with the time to determine who is the reporting person will also vary by the number of potential parties who may assume the role and thus might be parties to a designation agreement. Additionally, the time required to prepare a report will likely vary with the complexity of the beneficial ownership of the transferee and, for example, the level of the transferee entity's preexisting familiarity with the concepts of beneficial ownership information as defined for FinCEN purposes.
FinCEN continues to estimate an average per-party cost to determine the reporting person of 30 (15) minutes for the party that assumes the role if a designation agreement is (not) required and 15 minutes each for all non-reporting parties (assuming each tier in the cascade corresponds to one reporting person). Therefore, the range of potential time costs associated with determining the reporting person is expected to be between 15 to 90 minutes. Recently, FinCEN received updated information from parties currently reporting under the Residential Real Estate GTOs indicating that the previously estimated time cost of 20 minutes for that reporting requirement was less than half the average time expended per report in practice. Based on this feedback, the filing time burden FinCEN anticipates for the rule accordingly incorporates a 45-minute estimate for the collection and reporting of the subset of Real Estate Report required information that is similar to information in reports filed under the Residential Real Estate GTOs, although FinCEN recognizes that certain transfers may require significantly more time. Mindful of these outliers, FinCEN estimates an average 2 hour per reportable transfer time cost to collect and review transferee and transfer-specific reportable information and related documents, and an average 30 minute additional time cost to reporting.
Based on the range of expected reportable transfers and the wages associated with different persons in the potential reporting cascade, FinCEN anticipates that the rule's reporting costs may be between approximately $174.6 million and $466.5 million.
In its original NPRM analysis, FinCEN stated an expectation that reporting persons would generally be able to rely on technology previously purchased and already deployed in the ordinary course of business (namely, computers and access to the internet) to comply with the proposed reporting requirements, and therefore no line item of incremental expected IT costs was ascribed to reporting. Certain commenters expressed that this expectation would be unrealistic because their current business practices rely on software for tracking and internal controls processes, for example, that would need to be updated in light of the rule's reporting requirements. However, FinCEN did not receive any comments that would enable it to quantify the expected burden associated with these software upgrades that commenters described. In the absence of readily generalizable cost estimates, it is therefore not feasible to update reporting costs responsively, though FinCEN acknowledges that, as a consequence, its aggregate burden estimates can, at best, function as a lower-bound expectation of the total costs of the rule.
FinCEN continues to expect that the rule would impose recordkeeping requirements on reporting persons as well as, in certain cases, members of a given reportable transfer's cascade that are not the reporting person. The primary variation in expected recordkeeping costs would flow from the conditions under which the reporting person has assumed their role. Additional variation in costs may result from differences in the dollar value assigned to the reporting person's time costs as a function of their primary occupation.
If the reporting person assumes that role as a function of their position in the reporting cascade, this would imply that no meaningfully distinct person involved in the transfer provided the preceding service(s). In this case, the reporting person's recordkeeping requirements would be limited to the retention of compliance documents (
If the reporting person has instead assumed that role as the result of a designation agreement, the rule would impose additional recordkeeping requirements on both the reporting person and at least one other member of the reporting cascade. This is because the existence of a designation agreement implies the existence of one or more distinct alternative parties to the reportable transfer that provided a preceding service or services as described in the cascade. While the final rule only stipulates that “all parties to a designation agreement” would also be anticipated to incur recordkeeping costs, FinCEN expects the minimum number of additional parties required to retain a readily accessible copy of the designation agreement for a five-year period would, in practice, depend on the number of alternative reporting parties servicing the transfer in a capacity that precedes the designated reporting person in the cascade, as it would otherwise be difficult to demonstrate the prerequisite sequence of conditions were met to establish the “but for” of the requirement. Conservatively assuming that each service in the cascade is provided by a separate party, this would impose an incremental recordkeeping cost on at least two parties per transfer and at most five. Because FinCEN estimates of reporting costs already assign the costs of preparing a designation agreement to the reporting person (when a transfer includes a designation agreement), the incremental recordkeeping costs it estimates here pertain solely to the electronic dissemination, signing, and storage of the agreement. This is assigned an average time cost of five minutes per signing party to read and sign the designation agreement, as well as a ten-cent record processing and maintenance cost per transfer. Thus, designation agreement-specific recordkeeping costs are expected to include a time cost of 10-50 minutes (assuming one party signing per tier of the cascade) and $0.20-$0.50 per reportable transfer that involves a designation. This corresponds to expected annual aggregate costs ranging from approximately $10.9 million to $36.1 million. FinCEN notes that it assumes that rational parties to a reportable transfer would not enter into a designation agreement if the expected cost of doing so, including compliance with the recordkeeping requirements, were not elsewhere compensated in the form of efficiency gains or other offsetting cost savings associated with other components of compliance with the rule, such as training or reporting costs. As such, the estimates provided here should only be taken to reflect a pro forma accounting cost.
Several commenters expressed concern that in addition to the technological costs associated with new or upgraded software, they would face certain non-monetary costs in the form of increased technology and cybersecurity related risk. Because FinCEN is not requiring reporting persons to retain copies of filed Real Estate Reports, it is not clear how the incremental data that would be retained (
To implement the rule, FinCEN expects to incur certain operating costs that would include approximately $8.5 million in the first year and approximately $7 million each year thereafter. These estimates include anticipated novel expenses related to technological implementation,
While such operating costs are not typically considered part of the general economic cost of a rule, FinCEN acknowledges that this treatment implicitly assumes that resources commensurate with the novel operating costs exist. If this assumption does not hold, then operating costs associated with a rule may impose certain economic costs on the public in the form of opportunity costs from the agency's forgone alternative activities and those activities' attendant benefits. Putting that into the context of this rule, and benchmarking against FinCEN's actual appropriated budget for fiscal year 2023 ($190.2 million),
In the NPRM, FinCEN analyzed the expected impact of three policy alternatives to the proposed rule and invited public comment regarding the
First, instead of the designation option included in the proposed rule, FinCEN could have required the reporting person to be determined strictly by the reporting cascade, leaving it to the parties to a covered transfer to determine which service provider would meet the highest tier of the cascade and consequently be required to report without any option to select whichever party in the reporting cascade is best-positioned to file the report. FinCEN expects that rational parties would prefer to assign the reporting obligation to the party who can complete the report most cost-effectively. An alternative reporting structure that does not allow the parties to designate a reporting person responsible for the report would therefore be less cost-effective than the approach proposed in the NPRM, unless the reporting cascade would always assign the reporting requirement to the party with the lowest associated compliance costs. Because FinCEN expects that parties to the covered transfer may be better situated to determine which party can complete the required report in the most cost-effective manner, FinCEN declined to propose a standalone reporting cascade. FinCEN did not receive any comments indicating that it was mistaken in its assumptions, nor did it receive any comments indicating a preference for the designation option to be removed.
As a second alternative, FinCEN could have proposed to impose the full traditional SAR filing obligations and AML/CFT program requirements on the various real estate professionals included in the proposed reporting cascade instead of the narrower requirement that only one participant party would be required to file a Real Estate Report. While imposing full AML/CFT program requirements on all real estate professionals would have almost certainly served to mitigate the illicit finance risks in the residential real estate sector, FinCEN considered that the costs accompanying this alternative would be commensurately more significant and would likely disproportionately burden small businesses. Such weighting of costs towards smaller entities was expected to increase transaction costs associated with residential real property transfers both directly via program-related operational costs and indirectly via the potential anticompetitive effects of program costs and was therefore considered a less viable alternative than the streamlined reporting obligation proposed. FinCEN did not receive any comments indicating that it was mistaken in its expectations about the economic impact of this alternative or its lesser desirability.
Finally, as a third alternative, FinCEN could have required the reporting person to certify the transferee's beneficial ownership information instead of allowing them to rely upon the transferee entity or trust to certify to the reporting person that the beneficial ownership information they have provided is accurate to the best of their knowledge. FinCEN anticipated that this alternative would likely be accompanied by a number of increased costs, including a potential need for longer, more detailed compliance training; lengthier time necessary to collect and review documents supporting the reported transferee beneficial ownership information required; and increased recordkeeping costs. FinCEN also considered that there might also be costs associated with transfers that would not occur if, for example, a reporting person was unwilling or unable to certify the transferee's information. Furthermore, FinCEN was concerned about the potential anticompetitive effects that might arise if certain reporting persons are better positioned to absorb the risks associated with certifying transferee beneficial ownership information, as it was foreseeable that smaller businesses could be at a disadvantage. FinCEN did not receive any comments indicating that it was mistaken in its expectations about the economic impact of this alternative or comments from potentially affected transferees that they would prefer the reporting person to provide certification instead.
E.O. 12866 and its amendments 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, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity).
Because annual residential real estate transaction volume can vary significantly from year to year and is sensitive to a host of macroeconomic factors (some of which cannot easily be modeled with reasonable accuracy), estimates that rely on average values of current data projected over extended periods of time into the future may be of limited informational value. Nevertheless, FinCEN has prepared certain annualized cost estimates as recommended in OMB circular A-4.
This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action;” accordingly, it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA
Having considered the various possible outcomes for small entities under the reporting requirements at the proposal stage
Nevertheless, while further steps to accommodate or discuss small entity concerns may not be a strict requirement, FinCEN is mindful of the small-business-oriented views and concerns voiced during the public comment period and has not precluded taking additional steps, as feasible, to facilitate implementation of the final rule in a manner that minimizes the perceived or realized competitive disadvantages a small business or other affected small entity may face. This includes, but may not be limited to, targeted outreach and production of training materials such as FAQs or a Small Entity Compliance Guide, in addition to the more broadly available support services as previously discussed in Section III.A and Section VI.A.iv.b.
Having considered the various possible outcomes for small entities under the reporting requirements at the proposal stage and having taken the public comments received in response to the NPRM into consideration for the final rule, FinCEN continues to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202 of the UMRA
The new information collection requirements contained in this rule (31 CFR 1031.320) have been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as meeting the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) for purposes of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA).
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bankruptcy, Banks and banking, Brokers, Buildings and facilities, Business and industry, Condominiums, Cooperatives, Courts, Currency, Citizenship and naturalization, Crime, Electronic filing, Estates, Fair housing, Federal home loan banks, Federal savings associations, Federal-States relations, Foreign investments in U.S., Foreign persons, Foundations, Holding companies, Home improvement, Homesteads, Housing, Indian—law, Indians, Indians—tribal government, Insurance companies, Investment advisers, Investment companies, Investigations, Lawyers, Legal services, Law enforcement, Low and moderate income housing, Money laundering, Mortgage insurances, Mortgages, Penalties, Privacy, Real property acquisition, Record retention, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Securities, Taxes, Terrorism, Trusts and trustees, U.S. territories.
12 U.S.C. 1829b, 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5336; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; sec. 6403, Pub. L. 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388.
(a)
(b)
(i) Real property located in the United States containing a structure designed principally for occupancy by one to four families;
(ii) Land located in the United States on which the transferee intends to build a structure designed principally for occupancy by one to four families;
(iii) A unit designed principally for occupancy by one to four families within a structure on land located in the United States; or
(iv) Shares in a cooperative housing corporation for which the underlying property is located in the United States.
(2) A reportable transfer does not include a:
(i) Grant, transfer, or revocation of an easement;
(ii) Transfer resulting from the death of an individual, whether pursuant to the terms of a decedent's will or the terms of a trust, the operation of law, or by contractual provision;
(iii) Transfer incident to divorce or dissolution of a marriage or civil union;
(iv) Transfer to a bankruptcy estate;
(v) Transfer supervised by a court in the United States;
(vi) Transfer for no consideration made by an individual, either alone or with the individual's spouse, to a trust of which that individual, that individual's spouse, or both of them, are the settlor(s) or grantor(s);
(vii) Transfer to a qualified intermediary for purposes of 26 CFR 1.1031(k)-1; or
(viii) Transfer for which there is no reporting person.
(c)
(i) The person listed as the closing or settlement agent on the closing or settlement statement for the transfer;
(ii) If no person described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section is involved in the transfer, then the person that prepares the closing or settlement statement for the transfer;
(iii) If no person described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section is involved in the transfer, then the person that files with the recordation office the deed or other instrument that transfers ownership of the residential real property;
(iv) If no person described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section is involved in the transfer, then the person that underwrites an owner's title insurance policy for the transferee with respect to the transferred residential real property, such as a title insurance company;
(v) If no person described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section is involved in the transfer, then the person that disburses in any form, including from an escrow account, trust account, or lawyers' trust account, the greatest amount of funds in connection with the residential real property transfer;
(vi) If no person described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section is involved in the transfer, then the person that provides an evaluation of the status of the title; or
(vii) If no person described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section is involved in the transfer, then the person that prepares the deed or, if no deed is involved, any other legal instrument that transfers ownership of the residential real property, including, with respect to shares in a cooperative housing corporation, the person who prepares the stock certificate.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) A designation agreement shall be in writing, and shall include:
(A) The date of the agreement;
(B) The name and address of the transferor;
(C) The name and address of the transferee entity or transferee trust;
(D) Information described in in paragraph (g) identifying transferred residential real property;
(E) The name and address of the person designated through the agreement as the reporting person with respect to the transfer; and
(F) The name and address of all other parties to the agreement.
(d)
(1) The full legal name of the reporting person;
(2) The category of reporting person, as determined in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(3) The street address that is the reporting person's principal place of business in the United States.
(e)
(i) The following information for the transferee entity:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Trade name or “doing business as” name, if any;
(C) Complete current address consisting of:
(
(
(D) Unique identifying number, if any, consisting of:
(
(
(
(ii) The following information for each beneficial owner of the transferee entity:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Date of birth;
(C) Complete current residential street address;
(D) Citizenship; and
(E) Unique identifying number consisting of:
(
(
(
(
(iii) The following information for each signing individual, if any:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Date of birth;
(C) Complete current residential street address;
(D) Unique identifying number consisting of:
(
(
(
(
(E) Description of the capacity in which the individual is authorized to act as the signing individual; and
(F) If the signing individual is acting in that capacity as an employee, agent, or partner, the name of the individual's employer, principal, or partnership.
(2)
(i) The following information for the transferee trust:
(A) Full legal name, such as the full title of the agreement establishing the transferee trust;
(B) Date the trust instrument was executed;
(C) Unique identifying number, if any, consisting of:
(
(
(D) Whether the transferee trust is revocable;
(ii) The following information for each trustee that is a legal entity:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Trade name or “doing business as” name, if any;
(C) Complete current address consisting of:
(
(
(D) Unique identifying number, if any, consisting of:
(
(
(
(E) For purposes of this section, an individual trustee of the transferee trust is considered to be a beneficial owner of the trust. As such, information on individual trustees must be reported in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section;
(iii) The following information for each beneficial owner of the transferee trust:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Date of birth;
(C) Complete current residential street address;
(D) Citizenship;
(E) Unique identifying number consisting of:
(
(
(
(
(F) The category of beneficial owner, as determined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(iv) The following information for each signing individual, if any:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Date of birth;
(C) Complete current residential street address;
(D) Unique identifying number consisting of:
(
(
(
(
(E) Description of the capacity in which the individual is authorized to act as the signing individual; and
(F) If the signing individual is acting in that capacity as an employee, agent, or partner, the name of the individual's employer, principal, or partnership.
(f)
(1) The following information for a transferor who is an individual:
(i) Full legal name;
(ii) Date of birth;
(iii) Complete current residential street address; and
(iv) Unique identifying number consisting of:
(A) An IRS TIN; or
(B) Where an IRS TIN has not been issued:
(
(
(2) The following information for a transferor that is a legal entity:
(i) Full legal name;
(ii) Trade name or “doing business as” name, if any;
(iii) Complete current address consisting of:
(A) The street address that is the legal entity's principal place of business; and
(B) If the principal place of business is not in the United States, the street address of the primary location in the United States where the legal entity conducts business, if any; and
(iv) Unique identifying number, if any, consisting of:
(A) An IRS TIN;
(B) In the case that the legal entity has not been issued an IRS TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction; or
(C) In the case that the legal entity has not been issued an IRS TIN or a foreign tax identification number, an entity registration number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction; and
(3) The following information for a transferor that is a trust:
(i) Full legal name, such as the full title of the agreement establishing the trust;
(ii) Date the trust instrument was executed;
(iii) Unique identifying number, if any, consisting of:
(A) IRS TIN; or
(B) Where an IRS TIN has not been issued, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction;
(iv) For each individual who is a trustee of the trust:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Current residential street address; and
(C) Unique identifying number consisting of:
(
(
(
(
(v) For each legal entity that is a trustee of the trust:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Trade name or “doing business as” name, if any;
(C) Complete current address consisting of:
(
(
(D) Unique identifying number, if any, consisting of:
(
(
(
(g)
(1) The street address, if any;
(2) The legal description, such as the section, lot, and block; and
(3) The date of closing.
(h)
(i) The amount of the payment;
(ii) The method by which the payment was made;
(iii) If the payment was paid from an account held at a financial institution, the name of the financial institution and the account number; and
(iv) The name of the payor on any wire, check, or other type of payment if the payor is not the transferee entity or transferee trust.
(2) The reporting person shall report the total consideration paid or to be paid by the transferee entity or transferee trust regarding the reportable transfer, as well as the total consideration paid by or to be paid by all transferees regarding the reportable transfer.
(i)
(j)
(2)
(k)
(2)
(3)
(i) the final day of the month following the month in which the date of closing occurred; or
(ii) 30 calendar days after the date of closing.
(l)
(m)
(2)
(n)
(1)
(B) The beneficial owners of a transferee entity that is established as a non-profit corporation or similar entity, regardless of jurisdiction of formation, are limited to individuals who exercise substantial control over the entity, as defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1) on the date of closing.
(ii)
(A) A trustee of the transferee trust.
(B) An individual other than a trustee with the authority to dispose of transferee trust assets.
(C) A beneficiary who is the sole permissible recipient of income and principal from the transferee trust or who has the right to demand a distribution of, or withdraw, substantially all of the assets from the transferee trust.
(D) A grantor or settlor who has the right to revoke the transferee trust or otherwise withdraw the assets of the transferee trust.
(E) A beneficial owner of any legal entity that holds at least one of the positions in the transferee trust described in paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section, except when the legal entity meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (n)(10)(ii)(A) through (P) of this section. Beneficial ownership of any such legal entity is determined under 31 CFR 1010.380(d), utilizing the criteria for beneficial owners of a reporting company.
(F) A beneficial owner of any trust that holds at least one of the positions in the transferee trust described in paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section, except when the trust meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (n)(11)(ii)(A) through (D). Beneficial ownership of any such trust is determined under this paragraph (n)(1)(ii), utilizing the criteria for beneficial owners of a transferee trust.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) Secured by the transferred residential real property; and
(ii) Extended by a financial institution that has both an obligation to maintain an anti-money laundering program and an obligation to report suspicious transactions under this chapter.
(6)
(i) Through a deed, for a reportable transfer described in paragraph (b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section; or
(ii) Through stock, shares, membership, certificate, or other contractual agreement evidencing ownership, for a reportable transfer described in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(ii) A transferee entity does not include:
(A) A securities reporting issuer defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(i);
(B) A governmental authority defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(ii);
(C) A bank defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(iii);
(D) A credit union defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(iv);
(E) A depository institution holding company defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(v);
(F) A money service business defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(vi);
(G) A broker or dealer in securities defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(vii);
(H) A securities exchange or clearing agency defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(viii);
(I) Any other Exchange Act registered entity defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(ix);
(J) An insurance company defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xii);
(K) A State-licensed insurance producer defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xiii);
(L) A Commodity Exchange Act registered entity defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xiv);
(M) A public utility defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xvi);
(N) A financial market utility defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xvii);
(O) An investment company as defined in section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)) that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under section 8 of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8); and
(P) Any legal entity controlled or wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by an entity described in paragraphs (n)(10)(ii)(A) through (O) of this section.
(11)
(ii) A transferee trust does not include:
(A) A trust that is a securities reporting issuer defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(i);
(B) A trust in which the trustee is a securities reporting issuer defined in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(i);
(C) A statutory trust; or
(D) An entity wholly owned by a trust described in paragraphs (n)(11)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary presentation of final rules.
This document summarizes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) in this Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2024-07. A companion document, the
For effective dates see the separate documents, which follow.
The analyst whose name appears in the table below in relation to the FAR case. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or
The FAC, including the SECG, is available at
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these FAR rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2024-07 amends the FAR as follows:
This final rule amends the FAR to align the penalties language in the FAR lobbying provision at FAR 52.203-11 with the equivalent penalties language in the FAR lobbying clause at FAR 52.203-12. FAR 52.203-11(e) cites to the underlying authority at 31 U.S.C. 1352 and specifies that an imposition of a civil penalty does not prevent the Government from seeking any other remedy that may be applicable.
Administrative changes are made at FAR 4.1202, 19.102, and 19.309.
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2024-07 is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2024-07 is effective August 29, 2024 except for Items I and II, which are effective September 30, 2024.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision to align the penalties language with the equivalent penalties language at an associated FAR clause.
Effective September 30, 2024.
For clarification of content, contact Malissa Jones, Procurement Analyst, at 571-882-4687 or by email at
Lobbying coverage in the FAR is based on section 319 of Public Law 101-121, which added 31 U.S.C. 1352. Section 1352 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to influence certain persons in connection with awarding or modifying a contract and includes civil penalties. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance was published December 20, 1989 (54 FR 52306), which directed a FAR rule and an OMB nonprocurement common rule be published with the same substance. A FAR rule was published on January 20, 1990 (55 FR 3190), which has been occasionally revised since then. The penalties section of the FAR provision at 52.203-11, Certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions,
The statute that applies to the publication of the FAR is 41 U.S.C. 1707. Subsection (a)(1) of 41 U.S.C. 1707 requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it does not have a significant effect or impose any new requirements on contractors or offerors. The rule simply amends FAR provision 52.203-11(e) to match the language at FAR clause 52.203-12(e) which points back to the civil penalties provided in 31 U.S.C. 1352.
This rule amends FAR provision 52.203-11(e) to match the language at FAR clause 52.203-12(e), which points back to the civil penalties provided in 31 U.S.C. 1352. This rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the SAT, or to acquisitions for commercial products and commercial services, including COTS items.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (as amended by E.O. 14094) and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act DoD, GSA, and NASA will send this rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule does not meet the definition in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section II. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(e)
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
This document makes administrative changes to 48 CFR parts 4 and 19. The date change is to provide additional time to implement the policy addressing the assignment of North American Industry Classification System codes to orders placed under multiple-award contracts, as covered by changes made by FAR Case 2014-002, Set-Asides Under Multiple-Award Contracts, 85 FR 11746.
Effective: September 30, 2024.
Ms. Lois Mandell, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), at 202-501-4755 or
This document makes editorial changes to 48 CFR parts 4 and 19.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 4 and 19 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Small Entity Compliance Guide (SECG).
This document is issued under the joint authority of DoD, GSA, and NASA. This
August 29, 2024.
The FAC, including the SECG, is available at
For clarification of content, contact the analyst whose name appears in the table below. Please cite FAC 2024-07 and the FAR Case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these FAR rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2024-07 amends the FAR as follows:
This final rule amends the FAR to align the penalties language in the FAR lobbying provision at FAR 52.203-11 with the equivalent penalties language in the FAR lobbying clause at FAR 52.203-12. FAR 52.203-11(e) cites to the underlying authority at 31 U.S.C. 1352 and specifies that an imposition of a civil penalty does not prevent the Government from seeking any other remedy that may be applicable.
Administrative changes are made at FAR 4.1202, 19.102, and 19.309.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Department of Education.
Final regulations.
The Secretary of Education amends the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and associated regulatory provisions to update, improve, and better align them with U.S. Department of Education (Department) implementing statutes and other regulations and procedures.
These regulations are effective September 30, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of the
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4C212, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6776. 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.
The final EDGAR provisions:
• Make technical updates to refer to up-to-date statutory authorities, remove outdated terminology, use consistent references, and eliminate obsolete cross-references.
• Align EDGAR with updates in the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). For example, updates to EDGAR revise the tiers of evidence to incorporate and generally parallel those in the ESEA and specify the procedures used to give special consideration to an application supported by evidence in § 75.226.
• Clarify, streamline, and expand the selection criteria the Secretary may use to make discretionary awards under § 75.210.
• Clarify procedural approaches, such as those related to making continuation awards under § 75.253, and exceptions to the typical process for new awards under § 75.219, such as if a grant application had been mishandled.
• Improve public access to research and evaluation related to Department-funded projects by requiring, under §§ 75.590 and 75.623, that each grantee that prepares an evaluation or a peer-reviewed scholarly publication as part of the grant award or on the basis of grant-funded research make the final evaluation report or peer-reviewed scholarly publication available through the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), which is the current practice of the Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
• Expand and clarify flexibility for the Department in administering its grants programs, including by—
○ Providing the Department the option to require applicants under grant programs to include a logic model or other conceptual framework supporting their proposed project under § 75.112;
○ Replacing the definition in § 75.225 of “novice applicant” with a broader definition of “new potential grantee,” to allow additional flexibility to give special consideration to such grantees and to increase equity in the applicant pool and recipients of Department funds;
○ Allowing the Department to require a grantee to conduct an independent evaluation of its project and make the results of such an evaluation public under § 75.590;
○ Defining “independent evaluation” under § 77.1(c);
○ Clarifying for the first time that, under § 76.50, where not prohibited by law, regulation, or the terms and conditions of the grant award, State agencies have subgranting authority;
○ Allowing States flexibility under § 76.140 to adopt a process for amending a State plan that is distinct from the process used for initial approval; and
○ Clarifying the hearing and appeal process under § 76.401 for subgrants of State-administered formula grant programs, including by clarifying that aggrieved applicants must allege that a specific Federal or State statute or regulation has been violated.
There are differences between some of the selection criteria and definitions proposed in the NPRM and those established in these final regulations, as discussed in the
We recognize that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updated the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements (the Uniform Guidance) on April 22, 2024 (89 FR 30046). Many of the changes in EDGAR align with the goals behind the changes in the Uniform Guidance, and the Department will continue to review EDGAR, as needed, to ensure alignment with the Uniform Guidance.
Section 77.1 incorporates by reference the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 5.0. The purpose of the WWC is to review and summarize the quality of existing research in educational programs, products, practices, and policies. We incorporate the Handbook, which provides a detailed description of the standards and procedures of the WWC, by reference. The Handbook is available to interested parties at
The WWC is an initiative of the Department's National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, within IES, which was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Title I of Pub. L. 107-279). The WWC is an important part of the Department's strategy to use rigorous and relevant research, evaluation, and statistics to inform decisions in the field of education. The WWC provides critical assessments of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs, policies, products, and practices (referred to as “interventions”) and a range of publications and tools summarizing this evidence. The WWC meets the need for credible, succinct information by reviewing research studies, assessing the quality of the research, summarizing the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions on student outcomes and other outcomes related to education, and disseminating its findings broadly.
This handbook is available to the public at
Multiple commenters appreciated the focus on continuous improvement in the proposed changes and recommended additional locations for such focus in provisions governing discretionary and formula awards. One commenter urged the Department to ensure it sets clear expectations in its NIAs so that applicants with the greatest need and the opportunity for greatest impacts receive funding. The commenter specifically called for clear expectations by the Department in how it will continuously improve its grantmaking efforts, including how the Department clearly communicates the selection criteria in its NIAs, how those criteria are scored, and expectations for grantee performance.
Lastly, we appreciate the value of these final regulations for upcoming and future grant competitions. We will consider approaches to using these criteria that advance the goal of best positioning applicants and grantees to continuously improve their practices while implementing their projects. With respect to grantmaking expectations, the Department continues to focus on simplifying NIAs and clarifying the focus on outcomes for communities served.
Regarding the proposed 90-day minimum application period in § 75.102 for competitions where LEAs are eligible applicants, we are continually looking for ways to ensure a sufficient grant application period for our competitions, supporting efforts to make grant awards earlier in the year, and also ensuring that grant awards are made early enough to support efficient implementation timelines and to ensure appropriated funds do not lapse. Given the complexity of grant competitions, including those where LEAs are the eligible applicants, the Department needs discretion in establishing appropriate deadlines and therefore declines to make this change.
Multiple commenters recommended redesignating proposed paragraph (c) as a new paragraph (d), adding a new paragraph (c) that would require a continuous improvement plan, and expanding redesignated paragraph (d) to require a conceptual framework, which is broader than a logic model and accounts for other ways an applicant can demonstrate a connection between inputs and outcomes. The commenters recommended including a continuous improvement requirement so that applicants would make clear how they would use research, data, community engagement, and other feedback to inform the grant project.
A few commenters raised concerns about the proposed requirement for a logic model in § 75.112, worried it would potentially limit applications, especially applications from smaller, less experienced entities who lack resources (both time and funding) to apply for Federal grant funds and add an application requirement that, they believe, would not result in substantive improvement in the quality of the application. The commenters felt such applicants may be unsure about how to articulate their project's reasoning in the form of a logic model or about using a specific template, and were concerned about the amount of time and burden associated with using a template. In addition, these commenters raised concerns that the logic model might satisfy the requirement but might not actually be aligned with the proposed project or the evaluation plan for the project, including consideration of the local context. They also stated that logic models are often developed by grant writers, which would favor entities that can afford such a writer.
We agree with the commenters interested in ensuring grantees have continuous improvement plans for their projects. The final selection criteria in § 75.210 include factors that evaluate the elements of an applicant's logic model, such as how inputs are related to outcomes and the likely benefit to the intended recipients, as indicated by the logic model, which address the commenters' concern about alignment with the proposed project and its intended outcomes. The final selection criteria in § 75.210 also include factors requiring applicants to consider how the proposed project design focuses on continuous improvement efforts, such as establishing targets, using data, and gathering community member and partner input to measure progress and inform continuous improvement. We are revising paragraph (b) to include the requirement to discuss continuous improvement in relation to the logic model or within the applicant's project narrative.
We also agree with the commenters' suggestion that broadening the language beyond “logic model” allows for other frameworks that connect activities and outcomes, without requiring a specific logic model format, and therefore added “conceptual framework”.
The Department currently does not have a specific logic model template. If a logic model is used in a particular grant competition, the Department will provide technical assistance and resources to help applicants design their logic model, which may include the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at
Regarding paragraph (a) (“need for the project”), some commenters suggested including language to emphasize the comprehensiveness of the data required in factor (i), which considers how the applicant's data demonstrate the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the project, and language requiring coordination with other programs and services. Some commenters also expressed support for factor (iv), which considers the extent to which the project focuses on serving or addressing the needs of underserved populations.
Regarding paragraph (b) (“significance”), commenters recommended revisions to factors (v), (xi), and (xvii) that focused on measurable improvement, data infrastructure, and data analysis, citing the importance of using data to determine need and significance. Another commenter expressed general support for factor (xii) and its focus on dissemination of information beyond the individual grant so others can learn from these Federal investments. One commenter sought clarity about the meaning of the word “innovative” with respect to the factors in paragraph (b), concerned that peer reviewers' understanding of the term could widely vary.
Regarding paragraph (c) (“quality of the project design”), two commenters proposed revisions to factors (v) and (x) to emphasize the use of administrative data and reusable data tools in project design. Another commenter expressed general support for the focus on formative research in factor (xx) and the focus on continued refinement of a project based on initial findings. One commenter proposed a new factor for paragraph (c) focused on sharing the research design, methods, and preliminary outcomes early in the project timeline to ensure the quality of the research. One commenter appreciated the focus on meaningful community engagement in factor (xviii). One commenter raised a general concern about utilizing too many factors from paragraph (c) in an NIA, worried it would complicate the NIA and disadvantage less experienced applicants.
With respect to paragraph (d) (“quality of project services”), two commenters proposed a revision to factor (xii) to include how data from other social services or programs will be utilized to inform the project services.
We received multiple comments regarding paragraph (e) (“quality of the project personnel”). Specifically, multiple commenters appreciated the focus of ensuring diverse perspective in factor (iv); commenters were concerned, however, that an emphasis on having the project team reflect the demographics of project participants might limit other personnel with relevant experience, or that personnel might not be willing to share their demographics. One commenter proposed inclusion of “proximate, lived experiences” to broaden the focus of the factor. Another commenter was concerned that this factor might result in a researcher that is considered to be project personnel prioritizing samples that are reflective of their own demographics. One commenter proposed a new factor under paragraph (e) on project personnel using technology for data collection and analysis.
In paragraph (f) (“adequacy of resources”), one commenter appreciated factor (iv) and its focus on the reasonableness of costs in relation to people served, and two commenters proposed a new factor focused on “leveraging shared data and evaluation infrastructure,” consistent with the commenters' recommendations of including a focus on data throughout the selection criteria.
In paragraph (g) (“quality of the management plan”), two commenters recommended a revision to factor (ii) to include “shared data and evaluation infrastructure,” consistent with the commenter's interest in seeing the use of data across the selection criteria.
We received multiple comments on paragraph (h) (“quality of the evaluation plan or other evidence-building”). One commenter was concerned about the factors' wide range in rigor, especially in relation to evaluation design, and sought clarification on the meaning of an independent evaluation, specifically whether the evaluator could be from a separate unit of the same organization. Two commenters proposed a new factor on including administrative data and the “depth of insights” from using such data in the project evaluation, citing the importance of such data in continuous improvement efforts.
One commenter offered general support for paragraph (i) (“strategy to scale”), understanding the importance of local context for scaling strategies. One commenter sought clarity on how “efficiency” is defined for purposes of the paragraph (i) factors. Two commenters proposed a new factor in paragraph (i) on data tools and infrastructure, continuing to emphasize the importance of using data, and building an infrastructure for data, in Department grant programs and grant projects.
Regarding the proposed revisions to paragraph (a) factor (i), while it is important for applicants to provide data to support the need for the project, it would be difficult to meaningfully define “comprehensive” for all contexts, as the type of level of data varies based on a program's purpose and the population to be served, and we note that there are other selection criteria that incorporate the concept of program or service coordination, such as the coordination with other Federal investments. As such, we are not
Under paragraph (b), we appreciate the general support for the dissemination focus in factor (xii). We agree that it is important for improvement to be “measurable” in (v) and that “data infrastructure” fits within the purpose of factor (xi), and revised those factors in paragraph (b) accordingly. As for the proposed revisions to factor (xvii) to incorporate a data analysis tool, we determined this would more appropriately fit within paragraph (i) (“strategy to scale”), and we have included a proposed a new factor (x) under paragraph (i) related to data tools and techniques. We decline to adopt a definition of “innovative” for the purposes of paragraph (b), because the meaning of that term could vary based on program purpose and context, and it's important for individual programs to decide its meaning. In some programs, for example, innovative may mean something that is novel, while in others it may refer to a program aspect that is specific to the population or setting to be served.
Regarding the comment about using too many factors in an NIA from paragraph (c), we agree that it is important to consider, when reviewing which selection criteria to include an NIA, which criteria and how many factors are necessary, weighing applicant burden and the peer review process as we make these determinations but are not making and changes, as determination regarding the appropriate number of selection criteria and factors are determined for each grant competition. We support the proposed revision to factor (v) under paragraph (c), as we agree with the use of administrative data to support continuous improvement, and we have revised paragraph (c) accordingly. We decline to revise factor (x) to require use of administrative data, because not all grant programs or projects result in the creation of data tools, and we do not want to unnecessarily restrict the use of this factor. We appreciate the support for factors (xviii) and (xx) and agree that community engagement, performance feedback, and formative data are important to continuous improvement efforts and project success. We decline to adopt the proposed new factor related to early registration of research design, because we do not think this is a marker of quality related to project design at the application phase. Rather, this issue is best handled in post-award monitoring.
We decline the proposed revision to factor (xii) in paragraph (d) to include how data from other programs will inform project services, because focusing on other programs dilutes the central purpose of this factor, which is ensuring that project services align with the needs of the target population.
Regarding comments on paragraph (e), factor (iv) is intended to encourage projects that hire individuals who can relate to the life experience, assets, and needs of the target population; we recognize, however, that the demographics language as proposed could unnecessarily limit how those qualities are determined. As such, we have revised factor (iv) to include consideration of the lived or relevant experiences of those in the target population to allow applicants the flexibility to select a project team that can best serve project participants, taking a range of relevant circumstances into account, and have made a similar revision regarding lived experiences in factor (ii). We also took into consideration, across factors, the appropriate use of “target population” and “project participants” within a given factor. Regarding the comment about a researcher prioritizing study samples that reflect their own demographic characteristics during a project evaluation, we think this factor relates to the qualifications and relevant experiences of the personnel of the project, not about the design of the evaluation and any potential biases in the evaluation design. While we appreciate the suggestion to add a factor emphasizing the use of technology to support data collection and analysis, we have determined that this concept is more appropriate as part of the “strategy to scale” factors in paragraph (i), and we have added a new factor (x) in paragraph (i) to that effect.
We appreciate the support for paragraph (f) and understand the importance of shared data infrastructure. As noted above, we have determined that this concept is more appropriate as part of the “strategy to scale” factors in paragraph (i), and we have added a factor (x) related to data tools and techniques in paragraph (i).
In paragraph (g), we recognize the importance of the management plan utilizing data but do not think it is necessary to add the data source or the infrastructure around the data, as it is important that the factor should be focused on the overall use of quantitative and qualitative data without creating further complications for applicants or peer reviewers.
We understand that expectations related to the project evaluation in the paragraph (h) factors differ in terms of rigor; however, variance in the evaluation factors is intentional to account for reasonable differences in a program's purpose, the size of a grant, and complexity of the project. Regarding the meaning of independent evaluation, the NPRM included a proposed definition of “independent evaluation” that is adopted in § 77.1(c) of these final regulations, and that definition specifies that the evaluation must be independent from the design and implementation of the project component, which could allow for a separate unit from an organization, as long as that unit is not involved in the development or implementation. As to the proposed new factor related to use of administrative data, we agree there is value in mentioning the use of administrative data and have added a new factor (xvi) to gauge the extent to which the evaluation will access and link high-quality administrative data from authoritative sources to improve evaluation quality and comprehensiveness. Because this language comprehensively encompasses use of high-quality administrative data, however, we decline to also include the commenter's proposed “depth of insights” language.
With respect to paragraph (i), we appreciate the positive comments recognizing the importance of scaling strategies and taking local needs and context into consideration when scaling. We also agree that data and infrastructure tools are important to scaling efforts. To capture these important tools and additional proposed data-related factors in one place, we have added a new factor (x), which will consider the extent to which the project will create reusable data and evaluation tools and techniques that facilitate expansion and support continuous improvement. Consolidating the administrative data proposals into one factor maximizes the impact of individual selection criteria, both in terms of how applicants respond and how peer reviewers assess an application. We decline the commenter's request to define “efficiency” for the purposes of paragraph (i) because efficiency may vary within a specific Department grant program or individual grant project, and we want to retain flexibility in the application of that term. For example, efficiency in one grant program and grant project might relate to the cost per participant, while in another it might relate to identifying the project component(s) most necessary to maintain at scale.
We also undertook a review of the factors and selection criteria to ensure consistency, taking into consideration the comments received. As a result of this review, we made minor edits for
In paragraph (b), we added “educational challenges” to factor (iii), we added “measurable” to factor (v), “entities” to factor (vi), “regional” to factor (viii), “more” to factor (x), “or data infrastructure” to factor (xi), and “development of” to factor (xvii).
In paragraph (c), we ensured consistency in the use of “logic model” and “conceptual framework” in factors (iii) and (iv); added “and uses reliable administrative data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement” to factor (v); added “more” to factor (x), changed “encourages” to “includes” in factors (xviii) and (xix); in factor (xxii), clarified that reviewers can assess the extent to which applicants propose a plan for capacity-building that leverages one or more of the other resources listed in that factor; and included the “extent to which” language in factor (xxiii).
In paragraph (c), we added “meaningful” to factor (ii).
In paragraph (d), we added “responsive” to factor (i), modified factor (ii) for clarity by substituting “target population” for “entities,” and added “or other conceptual framework” after “logic model” in factor (iv).
In paragraph (e), we added the “extent to which” language in factors (i) and (ii), and we revised factors (ii) and (iv) to focus on lived and relevant experiences.
In paragraph (f), we removed the first mention of “organization” from factor (i), revised factor (v) to clarify how the costs would “permit other entities to replicate the project,” and in factor (vii), we changed “institution” to “applicant” and the “end date of Federal funding” to “Federal funding ends.”
In paragraph (g), we added “meaningful” to factor (ii).
In paragraph (h), we changed “provided for describing” to “are designed to measure” in factor (iii), added “diagnostic” to factor (vi), revised the second half of factor (xi) to focus on informing decisions about specific project components, added “the extent to which” in factor (xiv) along with “required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project,” and added a new factor (xvi) on administrative data.
In paragraph (i), we revised paragraph (1) to include “the proposed project for recipients, community members, and partners” and then removed this language from paragraph (2); added consistent language in factors (ii) and (iii) on “together with any project partners;” revised factor (iii) to focus on scaling at the national level, to distinguish it from factor (ii), as was the intent; added the “quality of the” before “mechanisms” in factor (iv) for consistency, changing “being able to expand the proposed project” to “expansion” in factor (vii); added “and are responsive to” in factor (vii), and added a new factor (x) on data tools and techniques.
In addition to prioritizing new potential grantees, multiple commenters encouraged prioritizing grantees “with a history of success,” citing, as an example, rural grantees that have benefited from the experience.
One commenter, while agreeing with the use of the term “new potential grantee” instead of “novice applicant,” questioned the likelihood that this modified priority would diversify the applicant and grantee pools, particularly in competitions with limited numbers of applications and competitions where there are often repeat grantees.
One commenter urged the Department not to prioritize new potential grantees in the TRIO programs, citing the program's statutory requirement to consider prior experience.
The Department declines to adopt a specific priority for experienced grantees, because other factors, such as the selection criteria in § 75.210, already take into account organizational and personnel experience. We are clarifying, in paragraph (a), that in instances where we prioritize new potential grantees by establishing an absolute priority for those applicants, we also have a separate absolute priority for applicants that are not new potential grantees, to align with the current practices of the Department. For example, a competition including § 75.225(b)(3)(i) as an absolute priority would include § 75.225(c)(3)(i) as a separate absolute priority. We are also clarifying how paragraph (a) works when used as a competitive preference priority.
As to the concern about whether prioritizing new potential grantees will successfully diversify the applicant and grantee pools, the Department is actively engaged in outreach efforts for each of its grant competitions, as discussed above in the response to the comment on §§ 75.100-75.102 and regards this new language as one tool in the broader strategy to reach more potential applicants for its grant programs.
Lastly, regarding the concern about prioritizing new potential grantees in the TRIO programs, the Department considers a program's statute and purpose, as well as the number and types of applicants in recent competitions, when determining whether and how to use § 75.225 for a particular grant competition.
Regarding the priority of evidence in specific Department grant programs, along with taking into consideration the current body of evidence relating to a program, the Department also considers a program's statute and purpose. Section 75.226 does not involve research or specify a particular use of funds regarding research, or whether funds are used for research or for direct services; instead, it addresses an applicant's submission of evidence during the grant application process to support a component of the proposed project. As noted above, the Department has the discretion to choose whether and how to use § 75.226 in a particular grant competition. For these reasons, it is not necessary or appropriate to add language giving particular priority to the strong, moderate, or promising evidence levels.
Two commenters expressed concerns with giving priority to an applicant based on its locale, stating that some entities located outside rural areas may have experience serving rural locations and should not be excluded if they propose to serve more than solely rural areas. They also expressed concern about prioritizing rural applicants when many services are now provided virtually.
One commenter did not feel rural applicants in the TRIO programs should receive priority because rural areas are already served by the program.
One commenter, in response to proposed § 75.590(c) requested clarity on the meaning of “independent evaluation” and requested that the Department require rigorous evaluations proposed under paragraph (h) of § 75.210 (“quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building”) be posted to ERIC.
Two commenters had privacy concerns about making data available to third-party researchers under proposed § 75.590(c)(3). One commenter felt LEAs might limit their participation in studies if they required sharing data about students. The second commenter felt the phrase “consistent with applicable privacy requirements” was not specific enough and should take into consideration other legal and privacy concerns, such as the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects and institutional review board policies, as well as terms established by the provider of the data.
Lastly, two commenters recommended that the Department set up a system, perhaps through the WWC, to manage these data sets, similar to how the IES makes data available from the National Center for Education Evaluation and Technical Assistance evaluations.
As for the meaning of “independent evaluation” under § 75.590(c), these final regulations add a definition in § 77.1(c). The definition allows different types of entities or units of an organization to conduct the evaluation, provided they are not directly involved with the project implementation. We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that rigorous evaluations proposed under paragraph (h) (“quality of the project evaluation and evidence-building”) in § 75.210 be posted to ERIC and will consider how to use the options available under § 75.590 when developing an NIA for a grant competition.
With respect to commenters' privacy concerns about § 75.590(c)(3), the Department's Public Access Plan takes data privacy into account.
[t]here are circumstances, such as when a State or Federal law does not allow student data to be further disclosed, where investigators will not be able to share their complete data set. However, [the Department] expects those data not restricted by law, including primary data collected by the project or extant data obtained from a private source, to be shared at the time of initial publication of the findings or within a certain time period following award close-out, whichever occurs first, in machine readable formats. As with publications, these data should be made available to the public without charge and with accompanying metadata to facilitate discoverability and re-use (Public Access Plan, section 3.0, page 6).
We agree that § 75.590(c)(3) could further specify privacy requirements and have added confidentiality language that is conceptually similar to the commenter's proposal and mirrors language in the Public Access Plan.
We decline commenters' request to establish a Department repository for data, because, as set forth in the Public Access Plan, other entities are developing plans to share data in public repositories that align with the characteristics described in the National Science and Technology Council document entitled “Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories for Federally Funded Research” whenever feasible.
We agree with the commenter's suggestion that paragraphs (a) and (b) should be presented as a non-exhaustive list of required evaluation activities and accept the commenter's proposed revision.
Not all programs or grantees will involve a Federal evaluation. We consider program statutes and purposes, including statutory requirements to conduct a program-level evaluation, when determining which programs and grantees should participate in a Federal evaluation. We also consider the Department's Learning Agenda, which sets forth six focus areas for evidence building over four years to strengthen the Nation's education system.
We also recognize that there are many types of evaluations and that the randomized controlled trial referenced in paragraph (b) may not be the appropriate type of evaluation for all programs. We take this point into consideration, among other factors, when determining when and how to evaluate a Federal program. Where a randomized controlled trial might be appropriate, however, it is important that an applicant be aware in advance and can recruit enough sites to allow the Department to randomly select a subset for the purposes specified in paragraph (b).
Additionally, we recognize that not all programs that will participate in a Federal evaluation will have a program statute that requires such participation, and we are removing this language to align with current Department practices.
One commenter had concerns that proposed § 75.602(a)(1) could inhibit innovative building practices by just focusing on meeting building codes and not considering other concepts such as net zero energy buildings. The commenter proposed revisions to focus on green building practices.
Two commenters expressed concerns about the proposed changes to § 75.606(b)(3) and (b)(5) regarding the recording of a Federal interest on real property and annual reporting on the status of real property. The commenters raised concern about the administrative burden of this recording and reporting when there are improvement and minor updates to real property. One commenter cited a lack of consistency in how “real property acquisition” is defined, including between the Department and OMB (as shown on OMB Standard Form 424D, for example). The commenter noted that the recording requirements of other agencies are not as extensive as the Department's and they allow recording to be forgone on a case-by-case basis where the Federal investment is minor. The commenter also requested less frequent reporting in § 75.606(b)(5), which the commenter asserted would be more consistent with OMB and other agencies. The commenter proposed these revisions to support a focus on green building efforts, encouraging the modernization of school buildings, and consideration of life-cycle costs in addition to upfront costs.
One commenter proposed specific edits to § 75.612 regarding mitigating flood hazards and flooding risks, noting that schools often serve as community shelters during severe weather.
One commenter recommended that § 75.616 include additional language to cover subsequent updates to the ASHRAE standards; the commenter also proposed language in paragraph (a) on life-cycle costs that take into consideration costs associated with building beyond initial construction and the costs associated with educating the community about the building efforts, which the commenter suggested be capped at 0.5%.
One commenter recommended revisions to § 75.618 to allow a grantee to “use additional standards and best practices to support health and wellbeing of students and staff.” The commenter indicated that, because standards are often updated more frequently than regulations, it would be beneficial to allow grantees, and LEAs in particular, to utilize standards when making health and safety determinations for their population.
The definition of “Federal interest” and the annual reporting requirement that is currently in 2 CFR 200.330 was originally in 2 CFR 200.329 when the Uniform Guidance was first adopted by many agencies, including the Department. The Uniform Guidance provisions apply to all new Department grant awards and non-competing continuations made on or after December 26, 2014, and include requirements around reporting on real property.
The Department's requirements are consistent with the Uniform Guidance, and the Department cannot speak to the practices of other agencies. We are adding introductory language to § 75.606(b)(3) to make clear that any recording of Federal interest must be in accordance with agency directives, to account for any program-specific directives that may impact the recording of Federal interest.
Regarding the comments and proposed edits to §§ 75.602, 75.612, 75.616, and 75.618 related to green building practices and flood hazards, and energy conservation, we recognize the importance of considering flood hazards, green building practices, life-cycle costs in building, and educating the community around construction efforts. We include the proposed changes to § 75.612 regarding flood hazards and are including additional, relevant Executive orders. Additionally, related to flood hazards, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's “Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input” includes information related to flood risk guidance that we note here for consideration. While we decline to require such measures due to potential costs to grantees, we agree that many of the commenters' suggestions would add value in the construction process and have added many of them as options in the provisions to which they apply, as set forth in the “Changes” section
We appreciate the interest in avoiding the need to update EDGAR when the ASHRAE standards are updated, but because ASHRAE is incorporated by reference in EDGAR, the specific version must be cited, which the Department will update if the ASHRAE standards are revised.
Lastly, we reviewed the construction sections for clarity and are making revisions to streamline the language, such as changing “made a determination on the specifications” to “approved”.
One commenter proposed revising paragraph (a) to incorporate the theme of continuous improvement.
With respect to the concern that peer reviewers might be influenced by publicly available performance reports, peer reviewers receive training to only review materials in the submitted grant application, and we will continue to emphasize this point. We thus decline to explicitly address this concern in § 75.720.
Given that § 75.720 cross-references defined types of reports in the Uniform Guidance, we do not think it is necessary to include suggested edits related to continuous improvement beyond the approved types of reporting from the Uniform Guidance.
We appreciate the concerns raised about how the potential for additional subgrants could require additional State oversight and training. This provision provides States with appropriate flexibility to implement grants in a manner most suitable to their circumstances, by permitting, but not requiring, the State to make subgrants. Accordingly, a State could avoid any additional training and oversight if the State agency elects not to award subgrants, except in those programs where subgranting is required by statute or regulations. However, when a State elects to engage in subgranting, or is required to do so, it is the State's responsibility as a Federal grantee pursuant to 2 CFR 200.332 to conduct oversight of the subgrantee to ensure Federal requirements are satisfied. Section 76.50(c) simply reminds grantees of those Federal requirements at 2 CFR 200.332 and does not impose additional oversight requirements on the State. These changes will ensure common standards across programs when applicable statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of a grant award are silent regarding subgrants. Even if the statute or regulations are silent, the Department may prohibit subgranting through the terms and conditions of a grant award, as appropriate given the nature of the program and its requirements. These provisions give both the Department and the State sufficient authority to ensure subgranting occurs only when appropriate.
The Department's Indirect Cost Division is available to provide technical assistance and guidance on issues relating to cognizance of direct recipients and pass-through entity responsibilities. Additional information is available at:
A few other commenters expressed concern that the existing requirements in § 76.650 are not consistently implemented or monitored. These commenters urged emphasis on grantee and subgrantee consultation with representatives of students enrolled in private schools by having § 76.650 reference proposed § 299.7(a)(1)(i).
At the same time, we also agree with commenters about the value of additional clarity regarding the consultation requirements outlined in § 299.7. Accordingly, we are including a cross-reference to final § 299.7 in § 76.652.
One commenter recommended the Department consider using the definitions for “evidence-based program” and “evidence-building program” that the nonprofit group Results for America has developed in consultation with its stakeholders, which the commenter asserted would improve upon the ESEA definitions. The same commenter recommended deleting the option under “moderate evidence” to use a study that includes “20 or more students or other individuals,” concerned that a study of this size is unlikely to meet a rigorous evidence standard.
One commenter recommended that the definition of “demonstrates a rationale” require that relevant outcomes relate to policy or practice, to narrow the focus to outcomes of most interest to policymakers. Another commenter recommended expanding the definition of “demonstrates a rationale” to include the second part of the ESEA section 8101 definition of the term, focused on learning from approaches implemented under the project.
One commenter appreciated that the proposed definition of “peer-reviewed scholarly publication” aligns with the Department's Public Access Plan, and that proposed § 75.623 requires peer-reviewed scholarly publications to be made available in ERIC.
Lastly, one commenter proposed a definition of “continuous improvement,” given its frequent use throughout EDGAR.
We appreciate the commenter's interest in including the definitions of “evidence-based program” and “evidence-building program” and appreciate the efforts of the stakeholders involved in the development of those definitions. While those definitions are in some ways aligned with the Department's approach to evidence-based policymaking, they differ enough from the tiered evidence framework in the ESEA and EDGAR that include four tiers of evidence, that we decline to revisit our approach in this rulemaking.
We decline the commenter's request to strike certain language in paragraph (ii) of the definition of “moderate evidence” related to a sample size of 20 students or individuals, because it is important that EDGAR's evidence definitions align with WWC Standards. The low sample size aspect of the definition ensures that the WWC Standards are appropriately inclusive for studies related to students with disabilities, by allowing for studies involving low-incidence populations in the context of a systematic review of an intervention report.
We decline to adopt the recommended additions to the definition of “demonstrates a rationale,” because the proposed revisions are intended to align EDGAR's definition with the ESEA definition to the extent practicable, and the section 8101 definition does not incorporate a focus on “policy or practice.” We also decline the suggestion to add the second part of the ESEA definition, which requires a showing of “ongoing efforts to examine the effects of [an] activity, strategy, or intervention,” because applicants that are required to demonstrate a rationale in their applications have not yet implemented their projects. We also decline to adopt the second half of the ESEA definition of “demonstrates a rationale” for consistency with the other tiers of evidence, none of which requires ongoing evaluation efforts. We note that other parts of EDGAR, such as the selection criteria in § 75.210, incorporate ongoing efforts to evaluate impact. See,
We appreciate the support for the proposed definition of “peer-reviewed scholarly publication” and agree that it's important for EDGAR, and this definition, to align with the
We agree that, given the frequency of its use throughout EDGAR, it is appropriate to define “continuous improvement.” We are adding a definition of “continuous improvement” that aligns with the Department's evidence framework in EDGAR and that is consistent with the Department's discussion of continuous improvement in other resources, including the Department's Non-Regulatory Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments (September 28, 2023).
Under Executive Order 12866, OIRA must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (as of 2023 but adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of OMB for changes in gross domestic product), or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. We have assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action and have determined that the benefits would justify the costs.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” OIRA has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
We have reviewed the changes in these final regulations in accordance with Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and do not believe that these changes would generate a considerable increase in burden. In total, we estimate that the changes in these final regulations would result in a net increase in burden of approximately $100 annually with transfers of $109.8 million per year at a 7% discount rate or $113.9 million per year at 3% discount rate. Most of the changes in these final regulations are technical in nature and are unlikely to affect the administration of programs or allocation of benefits in any substantial way. However, given the large number of edits herein, we discuss each provision, other than those for which we are updating citations or cross-references and making other technical edits, and its likely costs and benefits below.
Unless otherwise specified, the Department's model uses mean hourly wages for personnel employed in the education sector as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Changes to §§ 75.1 and 75.200 simply combine currently existing text into a single section and clarify terms used. We do not expect that these changes will have any quantifiable cost, and the changes may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
The deletion of § 75.4 as unnecessary and redundant is unlikely to generate any quantifiable cost and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.60, which delete an outdated table and clarify a definition, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable cost and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.101, which clarify what is in a notice and an application package, are unlikely to generate any meaningful cost and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to §§ 75.102 and 75.104, which move paragraph (b) of § 75.102 to § 75.104, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.105, which add reference to an already existing exemption to the public comment period to the regulations, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.109, which eliminate the requirement that an applicant submit two copies of any paper applications in addition to the original, may reduce costs for applicants that submit paper applications. However, those savings are likely to be minimal, given the small incremental cost of photocopies and the low number of paper applications the Department receives in any year. At most, we estimate that it would save applicants $7.50 per application, assuming a 75-page application photocopied at a rate of $0.05 per page. Assuming an average of 50 paper applications submitted per year, this change would result in an annual savings of approximately $375.
Changes to § 75.110, which more clearly specify how applicants must report against program measures and project-specific performance measures, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.112, which allow the Secretary to require applicants to submit a logic model or other conceptual framework, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs or benefits. Many grant competitions already include this requirement and, to the extent that it is included in additional competitions in the future, we do not believe that it would create a substantial burden for applicants, because we assume that applicants in those programs would likely already have conceptualized an implicit logic model or conceptual framework for their applications and, therefore, would experience only minimal paperwork burden associated with memorializing it in their applications.
Changes to § 75.127, which add the term “partnership” and clarify that all members of a group application must be eligible entities, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
The deletion of §§ 75.190-75.192 as duplicative is unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.201, which refer to selection “factors” as well as “criteria” are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.210, which would clarify word choice, update language based on past experience in using the current selection criteria and factors, and add additional factors such as those that include a focus on the use of data, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.216, which remove paragraphs (a) and (d) and revise the section heading, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations and providing the Department additional flexibility in considering applications.
Changes to § 75.217, which remove the word “solely” and add “and any competitive preference points,” are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.219, which reorganize the section to improve clarity, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.221, which revise the section to improve clarity and remove unnecessary language, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.222, which update the mailing address for unsolicited applications, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
The changes to § 75.225 change the current term “novice applicant” to “new potential grantee” and revise the definition to provide greater flexibility to the Department in classifying applicants as “new potential grantees.” We believe that this change may result in a number of changes in the behavior of both Department staff and applicants. First, we believe that the additional flexibility in the revised section will increase the number of competitions in which § 75.225 is used. Second, we believe that it may result in additional applicants submitting applications for competitions in which § 75.225 is used, increasing access to Federal resources and which may serve to strengthen the quality of the applicant pool. Finally, we believe that the additional applicants, in conjunction with any absolute or competitive preference associated with the revised section, may shift at least some of the Department's grants among eligible entities. However, because this revised standard will neither expand nor restrict the universe of eligible entities for any Department grant program, and since application submission and participation in our discretionary grant programs is completely voluntary, we do not think that it would be appropriate to characterize any increased participation in our grant competitions as costs associated with this regulation.
Changes to § 75.226, which provide the Secretary with the authority to give special consideration to an application that demonstrates a rationale, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs or benefits. Many grant competitions already ask applicants to discuss the extent to which they can demonstrate a rationale for their proposed projects through a selection factor and, to the extent that it is included in additional competitions in the future, we do not believe that it would create a substantial burden for applicants because we assume that applicants in those programs would likely already have conceived an implicit logic model or other conceptual framework for their applications and would, therefore, experience only minimal paperwork burden associated with memorializing it in their
Changes to § 75.227 provide the Secretary with the authority to give special consideration to rural applicants. The language in this section mirrors language adopted by the Department in the Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grants Programs (Administrative Priorities), published in the
Changes to § 75.234, which replace the word “special” with the word “specific,” are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.250, which update the heading and clarify that an extension of the project period is authorized by EDGAR only if the applicable statutes and regulations permit it, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.253, which allow a grantee whose request for a non-competitive continuation award has been denied to request reconsideration, could generate costs to affected grantees and the Department. In general, we do not deny a large number of non-competing continuation awards and, if that does happen, grantees are often aware of the likelihood of the decision well in advance and often cite no concerns if they do not receive a continuation award. Therefore, we do not believe that many grantees would qualify for the redress, and we do not believe that the few who may qualify would exercise the right. However, for the purpose of this analysis, we assume that we would process 10 such requests annually, which we believe is an overestimate of the likely incidence in order to capture the high end of potential costs. For each request, we assume a project director earning a loaded wage rate of $112.81 per hour, on average, would spend 24 hours drafting and submitting the request. At the Department, a program officer at the GS-13/1 level (loaded wage rate of $61.96 per hour) would spend approximately 8 hours reviewing each request, along with 2 hours for their supervisor at the GS-14/1 level (loaded wage rate of $72.69 per hour) to review. We also assume that a Department attorney at the GS-14/1 level (loaded wage rate of $72.69 per hour) would spend approximately 4 hours reviewing each request. In sum, we estimate that this provision would generate an additional cost of approximately $27,074 for grantees and $9,318 for the Department per year. In total, we estimate an additional cost of $36,392 per year.
The addition of a new § 75.254 gives the Secretary the authority to approve data collection periods. The language in this section is aligned with this previous authority under § 75.250(b) as well the Administrative Priorities and is just codifying this language in EDGAR. As such, these changes will not generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by allowing for data collection periods that give grantees additional time to collect data to measure project impact.
Changes to § 75.261, which remove references to obsolete programs and make other edits, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.263, which remove the clause “notwithstanding any requirement in 2 CFR part 200,” are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to §§ 75.560-75.564, which align these sections with the Uniform Guidance and provide additional information on the application of indirect cost rates, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.590, which allow the Department to require the use of an independent evaluation in a program and include a confidentiality provision, would likely generate transfers for affected grantees. Specifically, we assume that grantees that are required to use an independent evaluator will transfer grant funds from their currently designated purpose (such as to defray the costs of an internal evaluation) to pay for an independent evaluation. We note, however, that we do not believe that these transfers would substantially affect the level of support that beneficiaries of our competitive grant programs receive; the grantees would have spent a certain percentage of their awards on evaluation, whether such evaluation is conducted by an internal or external entity. We believe that the most likely programs in which the Department would require an independent evaluation are those that include an expectation of a rigorous evaluation using selection factors related to What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards in project evaluations. From 2014 through 2022, we included such selection factors in 18 competitions (excluding programs that have their own independent evaluation requirements, such as Education Innovation and Research and its predecessor, Investing in Innovation, because these programs are already included in the baseline), with a combined average of $194.8 million in awards per year. Assuming that evaluation costs in these programs average approximately 15 percent of total project costs, we estimate that the evaluations for these competitions would cost approximately $29,227,000 in Year 1.
Assuming equal-sized cohorts of new grants per year, we estimate that this total would increase through Year 5, when it would plateau at $146,135,000 per year. To the extent that grantees already use evaluators that would meet the requirements for an independent evaluation, this would represent an overestimate of the transfers associated with this provision.
Changes to § 75.591, which clarify how grantees cooperate with Federal research activities, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to §§ 75.600-75.615 and §§ 75.618-75.619, which restructure the sections on construction to improve the flow of the information, update citations, and include green building concepts that are optional and are for consideration in construction are
Changes to § 75.620, which update language regarding Federal endorsement, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
The addition of § 75.623 requires certain grantees to submit final versions of Department-funded research publications to ERIC so that they are publicly available, aligning with the Department's September 2023 Plan for Public Access: Improving Access to Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research (Public Access Plan). Given that submission of the files would be a required grant activity, we do not anticipate that the requirement will generate any additional costs for grantees. To the extent that submissions would generate additional burdens, they would likely be minimal and would be properly considered transfers from support of other grant-related activities. Such transfers would be
Changes to § 75.700 add existing Executive orders, which grantees must already comply with, to the list of authorities with which grantees must comply. These changes are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 75.708, which allow the Secretary to provide notice authorizing subgrants through the
Changes to § 75.720 allow the Secretary to require grantees to publish their annual performance reports on a public-facing website, accounting for privacy and proprietary business information. Given that publishing their reports would be a required grant activity, we do not anticipate that the requirement will generate any additional costs for grantees. To the extent that the publishing of the report would generate additional burdens, they would likely be minimal and would be properly considered transfers from support of other grant-related activities. However, we believe that, to the extent that the requirement results in a shift in activities by grantees, it is possible that there would be minimal transfers. We estimate that it would take a web developer approximately 30 minutes to post a copy of the grantee's annual performance report on the website. Assuming a loaded wage rate of $91.90 per hour for web developers, we estimate that this requirement could generate transfers of approximately $46 per year per affected grantee. In FY 2023, the Department made approximately 9,470 grant awards. Assuming this requirement would be used in 20 percent of those grants, we estimate total transfers of approximately $87,124 per year.
Changes to § 75.732, which includes using records for continuous improvement, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.1, which ensure consistent reference to State-administered formula grant programs, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.50 clarify that, in the absence of a statutory or regulatory prohibition against subgranting, or in the absence of a term and condition in the grant award that would prohibit subgranting, States, consistent with 2 CFR 200.332, determine whether to make subgrants. These changes would likely generate cost savings for States through the reduced burden associated with making subgrants as opposed to contracts. However, we do not have sufficient information to quantify this impact and did not receive public comment on the cost savings associated with such a shift at the State level.
Changes to §§ 76.51-76.52 and 76.100 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.101, which clarify the applicability of section 441 of GEPA, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.102, which remove a table and provide a general definition of the term “State plan,” are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.103, which remove extraneous text and simplify the section, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to §§ 76.125-76.136, which remove references to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and make other minor updates that better align with current statutes, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to §§ 76.140-76.142, which, among other things, allow the Secretary to prescribe alternative amendment processes on a program-by-program basis, could generate benefits for both States and the Department. The changes provide the Secretary broad flexibility to prescribe alternative procedures, which makes it difficult to assess precisely the specific cost reductions that would occur. However, we assume that these alternative procedures would result in a net burden reduction of 2 hours for a management analyst at the State level and 0.5 hours for an administrator at the State level for each State plan revision under the ESEA. We assume that the loaded wage rate is $73.18 per hour for a management analyst at the State level and $109.88 per hour for an administrator at the State level. We further estimate that alternative procedures that are likely to be used would result in a burden reduction of 5 hours for a management analyst and 0.5 hours for a chief executive at the State level for each State plan revision under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). We assume that the loaded wage rate is $161.20 per hour for a chief executive at the State level. We further assume, based on historical averages, an average of 15 State plan amendments under the ESEA and 52 State plan amendments under WIOA each year. In total, we estimate that these alternative procedures would reduce costs for States by approximately $26,238 per year. We also assume that the alternative procedures would reduce burden on Federal staff
Changes to § 76.260 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.301, which clarify that section 442 of GEPA does not apply to LEA subgrantees, would not generate any quantifiable costs, and would benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.400 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.401, which clarify that a notice of appeal must include an allegation of a specific violation of law by the SEA, are likely to generate benefits for the Department by reducing the number of appeals that fail to state a claim that we receive and process each year. On average, we process approximately 10 appeals each year, with an attorney
Changes to §§ 76.500, 76.532, and 76.533 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to §§ 76.560-580, which align these sections with the Uniform Guidance and provide additional information on the application of indirect cost rates, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.600 relate to updates regarding construction regulations to align with current statutes and regulations and are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
We are retaining §§ 76.650-76.651 and 76.653-76.662 as they exist in current regulations, with minor updates for clarity and accuracy, rather than making the changes proposed NPRM, and therefore the revisions to those sections should not generate any quantifiable costs.
The change in § 76.652 to refer to § 299.7 regarding consultation with representatives of private school students is unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
We are removing and reserving §§ 76.670-76.677. Since the only programs that were subject to these provisions are already subject to bypass procedures under the ESEA, which are now spelled out in §§ 299.18-299.28 (see below), there should not be any quantifiable costs to the removal of §§ 76.670-76.677.
Changes to §§ 76.702, 76.707-76.711, and 76.714 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.720, which clarify continuous improvement efforts in State reporting requirements, would not generate any quantifiable costs and would benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.722, which clarify periodic review and continuous improvement efforts in subgrantee reporting requirements, would not generate any quantifiable costs and would benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.732, which includes using records for continuous improvement, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations. Changes to § 76.740 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 76.783 indicate that a subgrantee may request a hearing related to an SEA's failure to provide an amount of funds in accordance with the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations. These changes would not generate any additional costs as this circumstance was previously contemplated in § 76.401 from which relevant provisions would be moved to § 76.783 for clarity.
Changes to §§ 76.785-76.788, and 76.900-76.901 are for clarity only. They are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to § 77.1(c), which update existing definitions, remove unnecessary definitions, and add new definitions, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to part 79, which remove outdated statutory references, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Changes to part 299, which reflect statutory changes, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
New §§ 299.16-299.17 specify what must be included in an SEA's resolution of a complaint and a party's appeal to the Secretary of an SEA decision. The specific elements listed in these sections are all what a legal decision or appeal should already include (such as a description of applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, legal analysis and conclusions, and supporting documentation). When the Department receives records on appeal that do not include one or more of these elements, we go back to the parties to request the missing element(s). Specifying the elements we need to issue a decision will prevent this unnecessary delay; we do not think that the specific elements will generate quantifiable costs, however, because, as noted above, these are items that parties should already be including.
Additions of §§ 299.18-299.28 regarding the procedures for a bypass in providing equitable services to eligible private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, and families, as applicable, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations. These sections reflect only minor updates to information previously contained in §§ 76.670-76.677, which will be deleted, as previously discussed.
In total, we estimate that these final regulations will result in a net increase in costs of approximately $100 per year with transfers of $109.8 million per year at a 7% discount rate or $113.9 million per year at a 3% discount rate. Of the
As noted above, we do not anticipate any meaningful, quantifiable impact from the majority of these final regulations. However, for those provisions for which we do estimate impacts, we summarize those impacts below using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, consistent with OMB Circular A-4:
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration Size Standards for “proprietary institutions of higher education” are set out in 13 CFR 121.201. “Nonprofit institutions” are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that these regulations present any significant impact on small entities beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the collection of information in these final regulations at the end of the affected sections of the regulations.
We anticipate that changes to §§ 76.140-76.142 would reduce State burden under existing information collection requirements by approximately 323 hours per year (see
These programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Accounting; Copyright; Education; Grant programs—education; Incorporation by reference; Indemnity payments; Inventions and patents; Private schools; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Youth organizations.
Accounting; Administrative practice and procedure; American Samoa; Education; Grant programs—education; Guam; Northern Mariana Islands; Pacific Islands Trust Territory; Prisons; Private schools; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Virgin Islands; Youth organizations.
Education; Incorporation by reference; Grant programs—education.
Intergovernmental relations.
Administrative practice and procedure; Elementary and secondary education; Grant programs—education;
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75, 76, 77, 79, and 299 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Section 75.263 also issued under 2 CFR 200.308(e)(1).
Section 75.617 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3504, 3505.
Section 75.740 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 1232h.
(a)
(2) The Department administers two kinds of direct grant programs. A direct grant program is either a discretionary grant program or a formula grant program other than a State-administered formula grant program covered by 34 CFR part 76.
(3) If a direct grant program does not have implementing regulations, the Secretary implements the program under the applicable statutes and regulations and, to the extent consistent with the applicable statutes and regulations, under the General Education Provisions Act and the regulations in this part. With respect to the Impact Aid Program (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), see 34 CFR 222.19 for the limited applicable regulations in this part.
(b)
(c)
(2) The Secretary applies the applicable statutes and regulations to fund projects under a formula grant program.
(3) For specific regulations in this part that apply to the selection procedures and grant-making processes for direct formula grant programs, see §§ 75.215 and 75.230.
An individual is ineligible to receive a fellowship, scholarship, or discretionary grant funded by the Department if the individual—
(a) Is not current in repaying a debt or is in default, as that term is used in 34 CFR part 668, on a debt—
(1) Under a program administered by the Department under which an individual received a fellowship, scholarship, or loan that they are obligated to repay; or
(2) To the Federal Government under a nonprocurement transaction; and
(b) Has not made satisfactory arrangements to repay the debt.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) How an applicant can obtain an application package.
The revision and addition read as follows.
(c) If an applicant wants a new grant, the applicant must submit an application in accordance with the requirements in the application notice.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) The final annual priorities are developed under the exemption from rulemaking for the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority pursuant to section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1), or an exemption from rulemaking under section 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1481(d), section 191 of the Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581, or any other applicable exemption from rulemaking.
An applicant may make changes to its application on or before the deadline date for submitting the application under the program.
(a) The Secretary may establish, in an application notice for a competition, one or more program performance measurement requirements, including requirements for performance measures, baseline data, or performance targets, and a requirement that applicants propose in their applications one or more of their own project-specific performance measures, baseline data, or performance targets and ensure that the applicant's project-specific performance measurement plan would, if well implemented, yield quality data.
(b) If the application notice establishes program performance measurement requirements, the applicant must also describe in the application—
(1)(i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(ii) If the Secretary requires applicants to collect data after the substantive work of a project is complete in order to measure progress toward attaining certain performance targets, the data-collection and reporting methods the applicant would use during the post-performance period and why those methods are likely to yield quality data.
(2) The applicant's capacity to collect and report the quality of the performance data, as evidenced by quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
(c) If an application notice requires applicants to propose project-specific performance measures, baseline data, or performance targets, the application must include the following, as required by the application notice:
(1)
(2)
(ii) If the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.
(3)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) An application must include a narrative that describes how the applicant plans to meet each objective of the project and, as appropriate, how the applicant intends to use continuous improvement strategies in its project implementation based on periodic review of research, data, community input, or other feedback to advance the programmatic objectives most effectively and efficiently, in each budget period of the project.
(c) The Secretary may establish, in an application notice, a requirement to include a logic model or other conceptual framework.
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) Partnership.
(c) In the case of a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, all parties in the group must be eligible applicants under the competition.
(a) The Secretary uses selection criteria to evaluate the applications submitted for new grants under a discretionary grant program.
(b) To evaluate the applications for new grants under the program, the Secretary may use—
(1) Selection criteria established under § 75.209;
(2) Selection criteria in § 75.210; or
(3) Any combination of criteria from paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(c)(1) The Secretary may award a cooperative agreement instead of a grant if the Secretary determines that substantial involvement between the Department and the recipient is necessary to carry out a collaborative project.
(2) The Secretary uses the selection procedures in this subpart to select recipients of cooperative agreements.
In determining the selection criteria to evaluate applications submitted in a grant competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following criteria and may select from among the list of optional factors under each criterion. The Secretary may define a selection criterion by selecting one or more specific factors within a criterion or assigning factors from one criterion to another criterion.
(a)
(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The data presented (including a comparison to local, State, regional, national, or international data) that demonstrates the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, or services; or otherwise address the needs of the target population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most affected by the issue, challenge, or opportunity, to be addressed by the proposed project and close gaps in educational opportunity.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of underserved populations.
(v) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare individuals from underserved populations for employment in fields and careers in which there are demonstrated shortages.
(b)
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is relevant at the national level.
(ii) The significance of the problem or issue as it affects educational access and opportunity, including the underlying or related challenges for underserved populations.
(iii) The extent to which findings from the project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational challenges and their effective implementation.
(iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to improve the provision of rehabilitative services, increase the number or quality of rehabilitation counselors, or develop and implement effective strategies for providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.
(v) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.
(vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study, including the extent to which the contributions may be used by other appropriate agencies, organizations, institutions, or entities.
(vii) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed project.
(viii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local, State, regional, or national capacity to provide, improve, sustain, or expand training or services that address the needs of underserved populations.
(ix) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of innovative and effective strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(x) The extent to which the proposed project is innovative and likely to be more effective compared to other efforts to address a similar problem.
(xi) The likely utility of the resources (such as materials, processes, techniques, or data infrastructure) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for effective use in a variety of conditions, populations, or settings.
(xii) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies.
(xiii) The potential effective replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation by a variety of populations or settings.
(xiv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project,
(xv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in employment, independent living services, or both, as appropriate.
(xvi) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project that demonstrate its impact for the targeted underserved populations in terms of breadth and depth of services.
(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project introduces an innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based project component to serve different populations, an extension of an existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of various project components to explore combined effects, or development of an emerging project component that needs further testing.
(c)
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project demonstrates meaningful community engagement and input to ensure that the project is appropriate to successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs and will be used to inform continuous improvement strategies.
(iii) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project's logic model or other conceptual framework was developed based on engagement of a broad range of community members and partners.
(v) The extent to which the proposed project proposes specific, measurable targets, connected to strategies, activities, resources, outputs, and outcomes, and uses reliable administrative data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement.
(vi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to enable successful achievement of project objectives.
(vii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design, such as qualitative and quantitative design, and procedures for documenting project activities and results for underserved populations.
(viii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(ix) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls, continuous improvement efforts, and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products.
(x) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period.
(xi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects the most recent and relevant knowledge and practices from research and effective practice.
(xii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to meeting program purposes and requirements and serving the target population.
(xiii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to any absolute priority or absolute priorities used in the competition.
(xiv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate or build on ideas, strategies, and efforts from similar external projects to improve relevant outcomes, using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.
(xv) The extent to which the proposed project is informed by similar past projects implemented by the applicant with demonstrated results.
(xvi) The extent to which the proposed project will include coordination with other Federal investments, as well as appropriate agencies and organizations providing similar services to the target population.
(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards and increased social, emotional, and educational development for students, including members of underserved populations.
(xviii) The extent to which the proposed project includes explicit plans for authentic, meaningful, and ongoing community member and partner engagement, including their involvement in planning, implementing, and revising project activities for underserved populations.
(xix) The extent to which the proposed project includes plans for consumer involvement.
(xx) The extent to which performance feedback and formative data are integral to the design of the proposed project and will be used to inform continuous improvement.
(xxi) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.
(xxii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the project period, including a multiyear financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; demonstration of broad support from community members and partners (such as State educational agencies, teachers' unions, families, business and industry, community members, and State vocational rehabilitation agencies) that are critical to the project's long-term success; or a plan for capacity-building by leveraging one or more of these types of resources.
(xxiii) The extent to which there is a plan to incorporate the project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the project period.
(xxiv) The extent to which the proposed project will increase efficiency in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results and increase productivity.
(xxv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with, or build on, similar or related efforts in order to improve relevant outcomes, using nonpublic funds or resources.
(xxvi) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale that is aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(xxvii) The extent to which the proposed project represents implementation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project with fidelity.
(xxviii) The extent to which the applicant plans to allocate a significant portion of its requested funding to the evidence-based project components.
(xxix) The strength of the commitment from key decision-makers at proposed implementation sites.
(d)
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equitable and adequate access and participation for project participants who experience barriers based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation. This determination includes the steps developed and described in the form Equity For Students, Teachers, And Other Program Beneficiaries (OMB Control No. 1894-0005) (section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1228a)).
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project were determined with input from the community to be served to ensure that they are appropriate and responsive to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries, including underserved populations, of those services.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by the target population that it is intended to serve.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.
(iv) The likely benefit to the intended recipients, as indicated by the logic model or other conceptual framework, of the services to be provided.
(v) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(vi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to provide long-term solutions to alleviate the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of the proposed project.
(vii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous and relevant standards.
(viii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in early childhood and family outcomes.
(ix) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the skills and competencies necessary to gain employment in high-quality jobs, careers, and industries or build capacity for independent living.
(x) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners, including those from underserved populations, to maximize the effectiveness of project services.
(xi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(xii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on recipients, community members, or project participants that are most underserved as demonstrated by the data relevant to the project.
(e)
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has project personnel or a plan for hiring of personnel who are members of groups that have historically encountered barriers, or who have professional or personal experiences with barriers, based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project.
(ii) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project team maximizes diverse perspectives, for example by reflecting the lived experiences of project participants, or relevant experience working with the target population.
(v) The extent to which the proposed planning, implementing, and evaluating project team are familiar with the assets, needs, and other contextual considerations of the proposed implementation sites.
(f)
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits.
(v) The extent to which the costs of the proposed project would permit other entities to replicate the project.
(vi) The level of initial matching funds or other commitment from partners, indicating the likelihood for potential continued support of the project after Federal funding ends.
(vii) The potential for the purposes, activities, or benefits of the proposed project to be institutionalized into the ongoing practices and programs of the applicant, agency, or organization and continue after Federal funding ends.
(g)
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The adequacy of plans for ensuring the use of quantitative and qualitative data, including meaningful community member and partner input, to inform continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.
(iv) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(v) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives, including those from underserved populations, are brought to bear in the design, implementation, operation, evaluation, and improvement of the proposed project, including those of parents, educators, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
(h)
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are appropriate to the context within which the project operates and the target population of the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.
(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide guidance for quality assurance and continuous improvement.
(vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(vii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings.
(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks.
(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks.
(x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (such as regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group) to assess the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes.
(xi) The extent to which the evaluation employs an appropriate analytic strategy to build evidence about the relationship between key project components, mediators, and outcomes and inform decisions on which project components to continue, revise, or discontinue.
(xii) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes.
(xiii) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a dissemination strategy that is likely to promote others' learning from the project.
(xiv) The extent to which the evaluator has the qualifications, including the relevant training, experience, and independence, required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project, including experience conducting evaluations of similar methodology as proposed and with evaluations for the proposed population and setting.
(xv) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to conduct the project evaluation effectively.
(xvi) The extent to which the evaluation will access and link high-quality administrative data from authoritative sources to improve evaluation quality and comprehensiveness.
(i)
(2) In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The quality of the strategies to reach scale by expanding the project to new populations or settings.
(ii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national or regional level during the grant period.
(iii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to further develop and bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national level during the grant period, based on the findings of the proposed project.
(iv) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations.
(v) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed level of scale.
(vi) The extent to which there is a market of potential entities that will commit resources toward implementation.
(vii) The quality of the strategies to scale that take into account and are responsive to previous barriers to expansion.
(viii) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness.
(ix) The quality of the plan to develop revenue sources that will make the project self-sustaining.
(x) The extent to which the project will create reusable data and evaluation tools and techniques that facilitate expansion and support continuous improvement.
Sections 75.216 through 75.222 describe the process the Secretary uses to select applications for new grants. All these sections apply to a discretionary grant program. However, only § 75.216 applies also to a formula grant program. (See § 75.1(b) Discretionary grant programs, § 75.1(c) Formula grant programs, and § 75.200, How applications for new discretionary grants and cooperative agreements are selected for funding; standards for use of cooperative agreements.)
The Secretary may choose not to evaluate an application if—
(a) The applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application; or
(b) The application does not contain the information required under the program.
The revision reads as follows:
(b)(1) The application was submitted under the program's preceding competition;
(2) The application was not selected for funding because the application was mishandled or improperly processed by the Department; and
(3) The application has been rated highly enough to deserve selection under § 75.217; or
If the Secretary has documentary evidence that the special circumstances of § 75.219(b) exist for an application, the Secretary may select the application for funding.
The revision reads as follows:
To ensure prompt consideration, an applicant submitting an unsolicited application should send the application, marked “Unsolicited Application” on the outside, to U.S. Department of Education, OFO/G6 Functional Application Team, Mail Stop 5C231, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
(a) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of new potential grantees is appropriate, the Secretary may: provide competitive preference to applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section; or provide special consideration for new potential grantees by establishing one competition for those applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section and a separate competition for applicants that meet the corresponding conditions in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) As used in this section, “new potential grantee” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions—
(1) The applicant has never received a grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that received a grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;
(2) The applicant does not, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, have an active grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that has an active grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;
(3) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement under the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program:
(i) 1 year;
(ii) 2 years;
(iii) 3 years;
(iv) 4 years;
(v) 5 years;
(vi) 6 years; or
(vii) 7 years;
(4) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement from the Department, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program from which it seeks funds:
(i) 1 year;
(ii) 2 years;
(iii) 3 years;
(iv) 4 years;
(v) 5 years;
(vi) 6 years; or
(vii) 7 years;
(5) The applicant has not had an active contract from the Department within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program for which it seeks funds:
(i) 1 year;
(ii) 2 years;
(iii) 3 years;
(iv) 4 years;
(v) 5 years;
(vi) 6 years; or
(vii) 7 years; or
(6) Any combination of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(c) As used in this section, an “application from a grantee that is not a new potential grantee” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions—
(1) The applicant has received a grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that received a grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;
(2) The applicant has, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, an active grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that has an active grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;
(3) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement under the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program:
(i) 1 year;
(ii) 2 years;
(iii) 3 years;
(iv) 4 years;
(v) 5 years;
(vi) 6 years; or
(vii) 7 years;
(4) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement from the Department, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program from which it seeks funds:
(i) 1 year;
(ii) 2 years;
(iii) 3 years;
(iv) 4 years;
(v) 5 years;
(vi) 6 years; or
(vii) 7 years;
(5) The applicant has had an active contract from the Department within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program from which it seeks funds:
(i) 1 year;
(ii) 2 years;
(iii) 3 years;
(iv) 4 years;
(v) 5 years;
(vi) 6 years; or
(vii) 7 years.
(e) For the purpose of this section, a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract is active until the end of the grant's, cooperative agreement's, or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.
If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applications supported by strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale is appropriate, the Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in § 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the procedures in § 75.105(c)(2), for applications that are supported by—
(a) Strong evidence;
(b) Moderate evidence;
(c) Promising evidence; or
(d) Evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
(a) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of rural applicants is appropriate, the Secretary may: provide competitive preference to applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section; or provide special consideration for rural applicants by establishing one competition for those applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section and a separate competition for applicants that meet the corresponding conditions in paragraph (c).
(b) As used in this section, “rural applicant” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions:
(1) The applicant proposes to serve a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under title V, part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(2) The applicant proposes to serve a community that is served by one or more LEAs—
(i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(3) The applicant proposes a project in which a majority of the schools served—
(i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(4) The applicant is an institution of higher education with a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a campus with a rural setting. Rural settings include one or more of the following: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant, and Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics College Navigator search tool.
(c) As used in this section, a “non-rural applicant” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions—
(1) The applicant does not propose to serve a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program authorized under title V, part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(2) The applicant does not propose to serve a community that is served by one or more LEAs—
(i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(3) The applicant proposes a project in which a majority of the schools served—
(i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(4) The applicant is not an institution of higher education with a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a campus with a rural setting. Rural settings include one or more of the following: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant, and Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics College Navigator search tool.
(a) If the Secretary selects an application under § 75.217, § 75.220, or
The Secretary may approve a project period of up to 60 months to perform the substantive work of a grant unless an applicable statute provides otherwise.
(a)
(1) Either—
(i) Demonstrate that it has made substantial progress in achieving—
(A) The goals and objectives of the project; and
(B) The performance targets in the grantee's approved application, if the Secretary established performance measurement requirements for the grant in the application notice; or
(ii) Obtain the Secretary's approval for changes to the project that—
(A) Do not increase the amount of funds obligated to the project by the Secretary; and
(B) Enable the grantee to achieve the goals and objectives of the project and meet the performance targets of the project, if any, without changing the scope or objectives of the project;
(2) Submit all reports as required by § 75.118;
(3) Continue to meet all applicable eligibility requirements of the grant program;
(4) Maintain financial and administrative management systems that meet the requirements in 2 CFR 200.302 and 200.303; and
(5) Receive a determination from the Secretary that continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The Secretary makes the award under §§ 75.231 through 75.236; and
(2) The new budget period begins on the day after the previous budget period ends.
(e)
(i) The obligation is for an allowable cost within the approved scope and objectives of the project; and
(ii) The obligation is not otherwise prohibited by applicable statutes, regulations, or the conditions of an award.
(2) The Secretary may—
(i) Require the grantee to submit a written statement describing how the funds made available under paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be used; and
(ii) Determine the amount of new funds that the Department will make available for the subsequent budget period after considering the statement the grantee provides under paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section and any other information available to the Secretary about the use of funds under the grant.
(3) In determining the amount of new funds to make available to a grantee under this section, the Secretary considers whether the unobligated funds made available are needed to complete activities that were planned for completion in the prior budget period.
(4) A decision to reduce the amount of a continuation award under this paragraph (e) does not entitle a grantee to reconsideration under 2 CFR 200.342.
(f)
(1) A grantee fails to meet any of the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) A grantee fails to ensure that data submitted to the Department as a condition of the grant meet the definition of “quality data” in 34 CFR 77.1(c) and does not have a plan acceptable to the Secretary for addressing data-quality issues in the next budget period.
(g)
(1) A request for reconsideration must—
(i) Be submitted in writing to the Department official identified in the notice denying the continuation award by the date specified in that notice; and
(ii) Set forth the grantee's basis for disagreeing with the Secretary's decision not to make a continuation award and include relevant supporting documentation.
(2) The Secretary will consider the request for reconsideration.
(h)
(i)
(a) The Secretary may approve a data collection period for a grant for a period of up to 72 months after the end of the project period and provide funds for the data collection period for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance measurement data on the project.
(b) If the Secretary plans to approve a data collection period, the Secretary may inform applicants of the Secretary's intent to approve data collection periods in the application notice published for a competition or may decide to fund
(c) If the Secretary informs applicants of the intent to approve data collection periods in the notice inviting applications, the Secretary may require applicants to include in the application a budget for, and description of, a data collection period for a period of up to 72 months, as specified in the notice inviting applications, after the end of the project period.
(a)
(1) The grantee meets the requirements for extension in 2 CFR 200.308(e)(2); and
(2) The extension is not otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation, or the conditions of an award.
(b)
(1) The extension is not otherwise prohibited by statute, regulations, or the conditions of an award;
(2) The extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds;
(3) The extension is to carry out the approved objectives and scope of the project; and
(4)(i) The Secretary determines that, due to special or unusual circumstances applicable to a class of grantees, the project periods for the grantees should be extended; or
(ii)(A) The Secretary determines that special or unusual circumstances would delay completion of the project beyond the end of the project period;
(B) The grantee requests an extension of the project period at least 45 calendar days before the end of the project period; and
(C) The grantee provides a written statement, before the end of the project period, of the reasons the extension is appropriate under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section and the period for which the project extension is requested.
(c)
(1) The grantee could not reasonably have known of the need for the extension on or before the start of the 45-day period; or
(2) The failure to give notice on or before the start of the 45-day period was unavoidable.
(a) Each grantee must comply with the following statutes and regulations:
(a) The differences between direct and indirect costs and the principles for determining the general indirect cost rate that a grantee may use for grants under most programs are specified in the cost principles for—
(1) All grantees, other than hospitals and commercial (for-profit) organizations, at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E;
(2) Hospitals, at 45 CFR part 75, appendix XI; and
(3) Commercial (for-profit) organizations, at 48 CFR part 31.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, a grantee must have
(c) A grantee that meets the requirements in 2 CFR 200.414(f) may elect to charge the
(1) If the grantee has established a threshold for equipment that is lower than the amount specified in the Uniform Guidance, the grantee must use that threshold to exclude equipment from the MTDC base.
(2) For purposes of the MTDC base and application of the
(d) If a grantee is required to, but does not, have a federally recognized indirect cost rate agreement or approved cost allocation plan, the Secretary may permit the grantee to charge its grant for indirect costs at a temporary rate of 10 percent of budgeted direct salaries and wages.
(e)(1) If a grantee fails to submit an indirect cost rate proposal or cost allocation plan to its cognizant agency within the required 90 days, the grantee may not charge indirect costs to its grant from the end of the 90-day period until it obtains a federally recognized indirect cost rate agreement applicable to the grant.
(2) If the Secretary determines that exceptional circumstances warrant continuation of a temporary indirect cost rate, the Secretary may authorize the grantee to continue charging indirect costs to its grant at the temporary rate specified in paragraph (d) of this section even though the grantee has not submitted its indirect cost rate proposal within the 90-day period.
(3) Once a grantee obtains a federally recognized indirect cost rate that is applicable to the affected grant, the grantee may use that indirect cost rate to claim indirect cost reimbursement for expenditures made on or after the date on which the grantee submitted its indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency or the start of the project period, whichever is later. However, this authority is subject to the following limitations:
(i) The total amount of funds recovered by the grantee under the federally recognized indirect cost rate is reduced by the amount of indirect costs previously recovered under the temporary indirect cost rate specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) The grantee must obtain prior approval from the Secretary to shift direct costs to indirect costs in order to recover indirect costs at a higher negotiated indirect cost rate.
(iii) The grantee may not request additional funds to recover indirect costs that it cannot recover by shifting direct costs to indirect costs.
(f) The Secretary accepts a current indirect cost rate and cost allocation plan approved by a grantee's cognizant agency but may establish a restricted indirect cost rate or cost allocation plan compliant with 34 CFR 76.564 through 76.569 to satisfy the statutory requirements of certain programs administered by the Department.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) If the Department of Education is the cognizant agency, the Secretary approves an indirect cost rate or cost allocation plan for a grantee that is eligible and does not elect a
(a) Educational training grants provide funds for training or other educational services. Examples of the work supported by training grants are summer institutes, training programs for selected participants, the introduction of new or expanded courses, and similar instructional undertakings that are separately budgeted and accounted for by the sponsoring institution. These grants do not usually support activities involving research, development, and dissemination of new educational materials and methods. Training grants largely implement previously developed materials and methods and require no significant adaptation of techniques or instructional services to fit different circumstances.
(b) The Secretary uses the definition in paragraph (a) of this section to determine which grants are educational training grants.
(c)(1) Indirect cost reimbursement on a training grant is limited to the lesser of the recipient's approved indirect cost rate, or 8 percent of the modified total direct cost (MTDC) base. MTDC is defined in 2 CFR 200.1.
(2) If the grantee does not have a federally recognized indirect cost rate agreement on the date on which the training grant is awarded, the grantee may elect to use the temporary indirect cost rate authorized under § 75.560(d)(3) or a rate of 8 percent of the MTDC base. The
(i) If the grantee has established a threshold for equipment that is lower than the amount specified in the Uniform Guidance, the grantee must use that threshold to exclude equipment from the MTDC base.
(ii) For purposes of the MTDC base and application of the 8 percent rate, MTDC includes up to the amount specified in the definition of MTDC in the Uniform Guidance of each subaward, each year.
(3) The 8 percent indirect cost rate reimbursement limit specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section also applies when subrecipients issue subawards that fund training, as determined by the Secretary under paragraph (b) of this section.
(4) The 8 percent limit does not apply to agencies of Indian Tribal governments, local governments, and States as defined in 2 CFR 200.1.
(5) Indirect costs in excess of the 8 percent limit may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award.
(d) A grantee using the training rate of 8 percent is required to maintain documentation to justify the 8 percent rate.
If a grantee or subgrantee decides to charge indirect costs to a program that is subject to a statutory prohibition on using Federal funds to supplant non-Federal funds, the grantee must—
(a) Use a negotiated restricted indirect cost rate or restricted cost allocation plan compliant with 34 CFR 76.564 through 76.569; or
(b) Elect to use an indirect cost rate of 8 percent of the modified total direct
(c) If the grantee has established a threshold for equipment that is lower than the amount specified in the Uniform Guidance, the grantee must use that threshold to exclude equipment from the MTDC base.
(d) For purposes of the MTDC base and application of the 8 percent rate, MTDC includes up to the amount specified in the definition of MTDC in the Uniform Guidance of each subaward, each year.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) The application of the negotiated indirect cost rate (determination of the direct cost base) or cost allocation plan (charging methodology) must be in accordance with the agreement/plan approved by the grantee's cognizant agency.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) An application notice for a competition may require each grantee under that competition to do one or more of the following:
(1) Conduct an independent evaluation;
(2) Make public the final report, including results of any required independent evaluation;
(3) Ensure that the data from the independent evaluation are made available to third-party researchers consistent with the requirements in 34 CFR part 97, Protection of Human Subjects, and other applicable laws;
(4) Submit the final evaluation to the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), which is administered by the Institute of Education Sciences; or
(5) Submit the final performance report under the grant to ERIC.
A grantee must cooperate in any evaluation of the program by the Secretary. If requested by the Secretary, a grantee must, among other types of activities—
(a) Cooperate with the collection of information, including from all or a subset of subgrantees and potential project beneficiaries, including both participants and non-participants, through surveys, observations, administrative records, or other data collection and analysis methods. This information collection may include program characteristics, including uses of program funds, as well as beneficiary characteristics, participation, and outcomes; and
(b) Pilot its Department-funded activities with a subset of subgrantees, potential project beneficiaries, or eligible participants and allow the Department or its agent to randomly select the subset for the purpose of providing a basis for an experimental evaluation that could meet What Works Clearinghouse standards, with or without reservations.
(a) As used in this section, the terms “construction” and “minor remodeling” have the meanings given those terms in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, §§ 75.600 through 75.618 apply to—
(1) An applicant that requests funds for construction or real property acquisition; and
(2) A grantee whose grant includes funds for construction or real property acquisition.
(c) Sections 75.600 through 75.618 do not apply to grantees in—
(1) Programs prohibited from using funds for construction or real property acquisition under § 75.533; and
(2) Projects determined by the Secretary to be minor remodeling under 34 CFR 77.1(c).
(a) The Secretary approves a direct grantee construction project—
(1) When the initial grant application is approved; or
(2) After the grant has been awarded.
(b) A grantee may not advertise or place the construction project on the market for bidding until after the Secretary has approved the project.
(a) In planning the construction project, a grantee—
(1) Must ensure that the design is functional, economical, and not elaborate in design or extravagant in the use of materials compared with facilities of a similar type constructed in the State or other applicable geographic area;
(2) May consider excellence of architecture and design and inclusion of works of art. A grantee must not spend more than 1 percent of the cost of the project on works of art; and
(3) May make reasonable provision, consistent with the other uses to be made of the construction, for areas that are adaptable for artistic and other cultural activities.
(b) In developing the proposed budget for the construction project, a grantee—
(1) Must ensure that sufficient funds are available to meet any non-Federal share of the cost of the construction project;
(2) May include sufficient funds for commissioning of energy, HVAC, and water systems and to train personnel in the proper operation of such building systems;
(3) For new construction and major rehabilitation projects, may consider life-cycle cost analysis for major design decisions to the extent possible;
(4) May budget for reasonable and predictable contingency costs consistent with 2 CFR 200.433; and
(5) May budget for school and community education about the construction project including its energy, environmental, and health features and benefits.
(c) Prior to approving a construction project under § 75.601, the Secretary considers a grantee's compliance with the following requirements, as applicable:
(1) Title to site (§ 75.610).
(2) Environmental impact assessment (§ 75.611).
(3) Avoidance of flood hazards (§ 75.612).
(4) Compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (§ 75.613).
(5) Preservation of historic sites (§ 75.614).
(6) Build America, Buy America Act (§ 75.615).
(7) Energy conservation (§ 75.616).
(8) Access for individuals with disabilities (§ 75.617).
(9) Safety and health standards (§ 75.618).
(a) A grantee must begin work on the construction project within a reasonable time after the Secretary has approved the project under § 75.601.
(b) A grantee must follow all applicable procurement standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D, when advertising or placing the project on the market for bidding.
(a) A grantee must maintain competent architectural engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site to ensure that the work conforms to the approved final working specifications.
(b) A grantee must complete the construction in accordance with the approved final working specifications unless a revision is approved.
(c) If a revision to the timeline, budget, or approved final working specifications is required, the grantee must request prior written approval consistent with 2 CFR 200.308(h).
(d) A grantee must comply with Federal laws regarding prevailing wages on construction and minor remodeling projects assisted with Department funding, including, as applicable, subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the “Davis-Bacon Act”; as applied through section 439 of GEPA; 20 U.S.C. 1232b) and any tribally determined prevailing wages.
(e) A grantee must submit periodic performance reports regarding the construction project containing information specified by the Secretary consistent with 2 CFR 200.329(d).
(a) A grantee must ensure that sufficient funds will be available for effective operation and maintenance of the facilities after the construction is complete.
(b) A grantee must operate and maintain the facilities in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements.
(c) A grantee must maintain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and other non-Federal entity records pertinent to the construction project consistent with 2 CFR 200.334.
(a) The Secretary approves a direct grantee real property project—
(1) When the initial grant application is approved;
(2) After the grant has been awarded; or
(3) With the approval of a construction project under § 75.601.
(b) A grantee using any grant funds for real property acquisition must—
(1) Comply with the Real Property Standards of the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200.310 through 200.316);
(2) Not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title, or other interest in the site and facilities without written permission and instructions from the Secretary;
(3) In accordance with agency directives, record the Federal interest in the title of the real property in the official real property records for the jurisdiction in which the facility is located and include a covenant in the title of the real property to ensure nondiscrimination; and
(4) Report at least annually on the status of real property in which the Federal Government retains an interest consistent with 2 CFR 200.330.
(c) A grantee is subject to the regulations on relocation assistance and real property acquisition in 34 CFR part 15 and 49 CFR part 24, as applicable.
A grantee must have or obtain a full title or other interest in the site (such as a long-term lease), including right of access, that is sufficient to ensure the grantee's undisturbed use and possession of the facilities for at least 25 years after completion of the project or for the useful life of the construction, whichever is longer.
(a) When a grantee's construction or real property acquisition project is considered a “Major Federal Action,” as defined in 40 CFR 1508.1(q), the grantee must include an assessment of the impact of the proposed construction on the quality of the environment in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) and Executive Order 11514 (35 FR 4247).
(b) If a grantee's construction or real property project is not considered a “Major Federal Action” under NEPA, a NEPA environmental impact assessment is not required; however—
(1) An environmental impact assessment may be required under State or local requirements; and
(2) Grantees are encouraged to perform some type of environmental assessment for projects that involve breaking ground, such as projects to expand the size of an existing building or replace an outdated building.
In planning the construction or real property project, a grantee must, consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 11988 of May 24, 1977, E.O. 13690 of January 30, 2015, and E.O. 14030 of May 20, 2021—
(a) Evaluate flood hazards in connection with the construction;
(b) As far as practicable, avoid uneconomic, hazardous, or unnecessary use of flood plains in connection with the construction;
(c) Mitigate flood hazards through design such as elevating systems and first floor elevations above flood level plus freeboard; and
(d) Summarize remaining flood risks in a memorandum.
A grantee may not use, within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, funds made available under a program administered by the Secretary for any purpose prohibited by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501-3510).
(a) A grantee must describe the relationship of the proposed construction to, and probable effect on, any district, site, building, structure, or object that is—
(1) Included in the National Register of Historic Places; or
(2) Eligible under criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
(b) In deciding whether to approve a construction project, the Secretary considers—
(1) The information provided by the grantee under paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) Any comments received by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (see 36 CFR part 800).
A grantee must comply with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act, Pub. L. 117-58, § 70901 through 70927 and implementing regulations, as applicable.
(a) To the extent practicable, a grantee must design and construct facilities to maximize the efficient use of energy. A grantee that is constructing a new school building or conducting a major rehabilitation of a school building may evaluate life-cycle costs and benefits of highly efficient, all-electric systems or a net zero energy project in the early design phase.
(b) A grantee must comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2022 in their construction project.
(c) ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2022 (I-P), Energy Standard for Sites and Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (I-P Edition), 2022 (“ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022”), is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the Department of Education (the Department) and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the Department at: Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 4C212, Washington, DC, 20202-8472; phone: (202) 245-6776; email:
A grantee must comply with the following Federal regulations on access by individuals with disabilities that apply to the construction of facilities:
(a) For residential facilities: 24 CFR part 40.
(b) For non-residential facilities: 41 CFR 102-76.60 to 102-76.95.
In planning for and designing a construction project,
(a) A grantee must comply with the following:
(1) The standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (See 29 CFR part 1910).
(2) State and local codes, to the extent that they are more stringent.
(b) A grantee may use additional standards and best practices to support health and wellbeing of students and staff.
(a)
(b)
As used in §§ 75.620 through 75.621, “project materials” means a copyrightable work developed with funds from a grant of the Department. (See 2 CFR 200.307 and 200.315.)
(a) Grantees must make final peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from research supported by Department grants available to the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), which is administered by the Institute of Education Sciences, upon acceptance for publication.
(b) A final, peer-reviewed scholarly publication is the final version accepted for publication and includes all edits made as part of the peer review process, as well as all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article.
(c) The Department will make the final, peer-reviewed scholarly publication available to the public through ERIC at the same time as the publication becomes available on the publisher's website.
(d) Grantees are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this section.
(e) Grantees must make scientific data that inform the findings in a peer-reviewed scholarly publication publicly available, consistent with requirements in 34 CFR part 97, Protection of Human Subjects, and other applicable laws.
The revision reads as follows:
If applicable statutes and regulations provide for participation of students enrolled in private schools and, as applicable, their teachers or other educational personnel, and their families, the grantee must provide, as applicable, services in accordance with §§ 76.650 through 76.662.
A grantee must comply with § 75.500, applicable statutes, regulations, Executive orders, stated institutional policies, and applications, and must use Federal funds in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and those statutes, regulations, Executive orders, stated institutional policies, and applications.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) The Secretary may, through an announcement in the
(e) Grantees that are not allowed to make subgrants under paragraph (b) of this section are authorized to contract, as needed, for supplies, equipment, and other services, in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D (2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326).
The addition reads as follows:
(d) Upon request of the Secretary, a grantee must, at the time of submission to the Secretary, post any performance and financial reports required by this section on a public-facing website maintained by the grantee, after redacting any privacy or confidential business information.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) Inform periodic review and continuous improvement of the project plans; and
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * * (Section 444 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) is commonly referred to as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974” or “FERPA”.)
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Section 76.101 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 7844(b).
Section 76.127 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.128 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.129 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.130 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.131 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.132 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.134 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.136 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.140 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231g(a), and 3474.
Section 76.301 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 7846(b).
Section 76.401 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231b-2, and 3474.
Section 76.709 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1225(b), and 3474.
Section 76.710 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1225(b), and 3474.
Section 76.720 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474.
Section 76.740 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1232g, 1232h, and 3474.
Section 76.783 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1231b-2.
Section 76.785 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.786 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e
Section 76.787 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.788 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.901 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1234.
(a) The regulations in this part apply to each State-administered formula grant program of the Department.
(b) If a State-administered formula grant program does not have implementing regulations, the Secretary implements the program under the applicable statutes and, to the extent consistent with the authorizing statute, under the GEPA and the regulations in this part. For the purposes of this part, the term State-administered formula grant program means a program whose applicable statutes or implementing regulations provide a formula for allocating program funds among eligible States.
(a) Under a program covered by this part, the Secretary makes a grant—
(1) To the State agency designated by applicable statutes and regulations for the program; or
(2) To the State agency designated by the State in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.
(b) Unless prohibited by applicable statutes or regulations or by the terms and conditions of the grant award, a State may use State-administered formula grant funds—
(1) Directly;
(2) To make subgrants to eligible applicants, as determined by applicable statutes or regulations, or if applicable statutes and regulations do not address eligible subgrantees, as determined by the State; or
(3) To authorize a subgrantee to make subgrants.
(c) Grantees are responsible for monitoring subgrantees consistent with 2 CFR 200.332.
(d) Grantees, in cases where subgrants are prohibited by applicable statutes or regulations or the terms and conditions of a grant award, are authorized to contract, as needed, for supplies, equipment, and other services, in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D (2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326).
(e) No subgrant that a State chooses to make in accordance with paragraph (b) may change the amount of Federal funds for which an entity is eligible through a formula in the applicable Federal statute or regulation.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a State that makes subgrants to local educational agencies under a program subject to this part must have on file with the Secretary a State plan that meets the requirements of section 441 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1232d), which may include information about how the State intends use continuous improvement strategies in its program implementation based on periodic review of research, data, community input, and other feedback.
(b) The requirements of section 441 of GEPA do not apply to a State plan submitted for a program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
As used in this part,
Unless otherwise specified by statute, regulations, or the Secretary, each State plan is effective for a period of more than one fiscal year, to be determined by the Secretary or by regulations.
The revision reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(a) An Insular Area may request that any State-administered formula grant programs be included in its consolidated grant and may apply separately for assistance under any other of those programs for which it is eligible.
(a) If the Secretary determines that an amendment to a State plan is essential during the effective period of the plan, the State must make the amendment.
(b) A State must also amend a State plan if there is a significant and relevant change in the information or the assurances in the plan.
(c) If a State amends a State plan, to the extent consistent with applicable law, the State must use the same procedures as those it must use to prepare and submit a State plan, unless the Secretary prescribes different procedures for submitting amendments based on the characteristics and requirements of a particular State-administered formula grant program.
(a) A local educational agency (LEA) that applies for a subgrant under a program subject to this part must have on file with the State an application that meets the requirements of section 442 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1232e).
(b) The requirements of section 442 of GEPA do not apply to an LEA's application for a program under the ESEA.
(a)
(b)
(2) The aggrieved applicant's request for a hearing must include, at a minimum, a citation to the specific State or Federal statute, rule, regulation, or guideline that the SEA allegedly violated when disapproving or failing to approve the application in whole or in part and a brief description of the alleged violation.
(3) The SEA must make available, at reasonable times and places to each applicant, all records of the SEA pertaining to the SEA's failure to approve the application in whole or in part that is the subject of the applicant's request for a hearing under this paragraph (b).
(c)
(2) No later than 10 days after the hearing, the SEA must issue its written ruling, including findings of fact and reasons for the ruling.
(3) If the SEA determines that its action was contrary to State or Federal statutes, rules, regulations, or guidelines that govern the applicable program, the SEA must rescind its action in whole or in part.
(d)
(2) The applicant must file a notice of appeal with the Secretary within 20 days after the applicant has received the SEA's written ruling.
(3) The applicant's notice of appeal must include, at a minimum, a citation to the specific Federal statute, rule, regulation, or guideline that the SEA allegedly violated and a brief description of the alleged violation.
(4) The Secretary may issue interim orders at any time when considering the appeal, including requesting the hearing record and any additional documentation, such as additional documentation regarding the information provided pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(5) After considering the appeal, the Secretary issues an order either affirming the final action of the SEA or requiring the SEA to take appropriate action, if the Secretary determines that the final action of the SEA was contrary to a Federal statute, rule, regulation, or guideline that governs the applicable program.
(e)
The revision reads as follows:
(a) A State and a subgrantee must comply with the following statutes and regulations:
(a) The differences between direct and indirect costs and the principles for determining the general indirect cost rate that a grantee may use for grants under most programs are specified in the cost principles for—
(1) All grantees, other than hospitals and commercial (for-profit) organizations, at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E;
(2) Hospitals, at 45 CFR part 75, appendix IX; and
(3) Commercial (for-profit) organizations, at 48 CFR part 31.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, a grantee must have a current indirect cost rate agreement or approved cost allocation plan to charge indirect costs to a grant. To obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or approved cost allocation plan, a grantee must submit an indirect cost rate proposal or cost allocation plan to its cognizant agency.
(c) A grantee that meets the requirements in 2 CFR 200.414(f) may elect to charge the
(1) If the grantee has established a threshold for equipment that is lower than the amount specified in the Uniform Guidance, the grantee must use that threshold to exclude equipment from the MTDC base.
(2) For purposes of the MTDC base and application of the 10 percent rate, MTDC includes up to the amount specified in the definition of MTDC in the Uniform Guidance of each subaward, each year.
(d) If a grantee is required to, but does not, have a federally recognized indirect cost rate or approved cost allocation plan, the Secretary may permit the grantee to charge a temporary indirect cost rate of 10 percent of budgeted direct salaries and wages.
(e)(1) If a grantee fails to submit an indirect cost rate proposal or cost allocation plan to its cognizant agency within the required 90 days, the grantee may not charge indirect costs to its grant from the end of the 90-day period until it obtains a federally recognized indirect cost rate agreement applicable to the grant.
(2) If the Secretary determines that exceptional circumstances warrant continuation of a temporary indirect cost rate, the Secretary may authorize the grantee to continue charging indirect costs to its grant at the temporary rate specified in paragraph (d) of this section even though the grantee has not submitted its indirect cost rate proposal within the 90-day period.
(3) Once a grantee obtains a federally recognized indirect cost rate that is applicable to the affected grant, the grantee may use that indirect cost rate to claim indirect cost reimbursement for expenditures made on or after the date on which the grantee submitted its indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency or the start of the project period, whichever is later. However, this authority is subject to the following limitations:
(i) The total amount of funds recovered by the grantee under the federally recognized indirect cost rate is reduced by the amount of indirect costs previously recovered under the temporary indirect cost rate specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) The grantee must obtain prior approval from the Secretary to shift direct costs to indirect costs in order to recover indirect costs at a higher negotiated indirect cost rate.
(iii) The grantee may not request additional funds to recover indirect costs that it cannot recover by shifting direct costs to indirect costs.
(f) The Secretary accepts a negotiated indirect cost rate or approved cost allocation plan but may establish a restricted indirect cost rate or cost allocation plan compliant with §§ 76.564 through 76.569 for a grantee to satisfy the statutory requirements of certain programs administered by the Department.
(a) If the Department of Education is the cognizant agency, the Secretary approves an indirect cost rate or cost allocation plan for a State agency and for a subgrantee other than a local educational agency. For the purposes of this section, the term “local educational agency” does not include a State agency.
(b) Each State educational agency, on the basis of a plan approved by the Secretary, must approve an indirect cost rate for each local educational agency that requests it to do so.
(c) The Secretary generally approves indirect cost rate agreements annually. Indirect cost rate agreements may be approved for periods longer than a year if the Secretary determines that rates will be sufficiently stable to justify a longer rate period.
(a) Reimbursement of indirect costs is subject to the availability of funds and statutory or administrative restrictions.
(b) The application of the negotiated indirect cost rate (determination of the direct cost base) or cost allocation plan (charging methodology) must be in accordance with the agreement/plan approved by the grantee's cognizant agency.
(c) Indirect costs for joint applications and projects (see § 76.303) are limited to the amount derived by applying the rate of the applicant, or a restricted rate when applicable, to the direct cost base for the grant in keeping with the terms of the applicant's federally recognized indirect cost rate agreement and program requirements.
(a) An indirect cost rate for a grant covered by §§ 76.563 or 75.563 is determined by the following formula: Restricted indirect cost rate = (General management costs + Fixed costs) ÷ (Other expenditures).
(b) General management costs, fixed costs, and other expenditures must be determined under §§ 76.565 through 76.567.
(c) Under the programs covered by § 76.563, a grantee or subgrantee that is not a State or local government agency—
(1) Must use a negotiated restricted indirect cost rate computed under paragraph (a) of this section or cost allocation plan that complies with the formula in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) May elect to use an indirect cost rate of 8 percent of the modified total direct costs (MTDC) base if the grantee or subgrantee does not have a negotiated restricted indirect cost rate. MTDC is defined in 2 CFR 200.1. If the Secretary determines that the grantee or subgrantee would have a lower rate as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, the lower rate must be used for the affected program.
(3) If the grantee has established a threshold for equipment that is lower than the amount specified in the Uniform Guidance, the grantee must use that threshold to exclude equipment from the MTDC base.
(4) For purposes of the MTDC base and application of the 8 percent rate, MTDC includes up to the amount specified in the definition of MTDC in the Uniform Guidance of each subaward, each year.
(d) Indirect costs that are unrecovered as a result of these restrictions may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) Subawards exceeding the amount specified in the definition of Modified Total Direct Cost in the Uniform Guidance each, per year;
(8) Other distorting items; and
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Under the programs referenced in §§ 75.563 and 76.563, the maximum amount of indirect costs recovery under a grant is determined by the following formula: Indirect costs = (Restricted indirect cost rate) × (Total direct costs of the grant minus capital outlays, subawards exceeding amount specified in the definition of Modified Total Direct Cost in the Uniform Guidance each, per year, and other distorting or unallowable items as specified in the grantee's indirect cost rate agreement)
(a) A State or a subgrantee that requests program funds for construction, or whose grant or subgrant includes funds for construction, must comply
(b) The State must perform the functions of the Secretary for subgrantee requests under 34 CFR 75.601 (Approval of the construction).
(c) The State must perform the functions that the Secretary performs under 34 CFR 75.614(b). The State may consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to identify and evaluate historic properties and assess effects. The Secretary will continue to participate in the consultation process when:
(1) The State determines that “Criteria of Adverse Effect” applies to a project;
(2) There is a disagreement between the State and the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer regarding identification and evaluation or assessment of effects;
(3) There is an objection from consulting parties or the public regarding findings, determinations, the implementation of agreed-upon provisions, or their involvement in a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review (see 36 CFR part 800); or
(4) There is the potential for a foreclosure situation or anticipatory demolition as specified in Section 110(k) of the National Historic Preservation Act (see 36 CFR part 800).
(d) The State must provide to the Secretary the information required under 34 CFR 75.614(a) (Preservation of historic sites).
(e) The State must submit periodic reports to the Secretary regarding the State's review and approval of construction or real property projects containing information specified by the Secretary consistent with 2 CFR 200.329(d).
If a program provides for participation by private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, and families, and the program is not otherwise governed by applicable regulations, the grantee or subgrantee must provide, as applicable, services in accordance with the requirements under §§ 76.651 through 76.662.
A subgrantee must consult with appropriate private school officials in accordance with the requirements in § 299.7.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) This section applies to a State's reports required for monitoring and continuous improvement, including 2 CFR 200.328 (Financial reporting) and 2 CFR 200.329 (Monitoring and reporting
A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720, in carrying out other responsibilities under the program, engaging in periodic review and continuous improvement of the State's plan, and supporting the subgrantee in engaging in periodic review and continuous improvement of the subgrantee's plan.
(a) A grantee must keep records of significant project experiences and results.
(b) The grantee must use the records under paragraph (a) to—
(1) Determine progress in accomplishing project objectives;
(2) Inform periodic review and continuous improvement of the project plans; and
(3) Revise those project objectives, if necessary.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * * (Section 444 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) is commonly referred to as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974” or “FERPA”.)
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Failing to provide funds in amounts in accordance with the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) Unless a statute or regulation provides otherwise, the following definitions in 2 CFR part 200 apply to the regulations in subtitles A and B of this title. The following terms have the definitions given those terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Phrasing given in parentheses references the term or terms used in title 34 that are consistent with the term defined in title 2.
(c) * * *
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “strong evidence” or “moderate evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness or “Tier 2 moderate evidence” of effectiveness or a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 20 students or other individuals from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, local educational agency (LEA), school, or postsecondary campus), or a “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 350 students or other individuals from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus), with no reporting of a “negative effect” or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC most recently using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 5.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet the requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A) through (C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D).
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC reporting “strong evidence”, “moderate evidence”, or “promising evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness, or “Tier 2 moderate evidence” of effectiveness, or “Tier 3 promising evidence” of effectiveness, or a “positive effect,” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—
(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (such as a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group);
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report.
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “strong evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness or a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 350 students or other individuals across more than one site (such as a State, county, city, local educational agency (LEA), school, or postsecondary campus), with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC most recently using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 5.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet the requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A) through (C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D).
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the Department of Education (the Department) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the Department at: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 550 12th Street SW, PCP-4158, Washington, DC, 20202-5900; phone: (202) 245-6940; email:
(a) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, WWC 2022008REV, Version 5.0, August 2022; Revised December 2022; IBR approved for § 77.1.
(b) What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook, Version 4.1, January 2020, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(c) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook, Version 4.1, January 2020, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(d) What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook, Version 4.0, October 2017, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(e) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook, Version 4.0, October 2017, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(f) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0, March 2014, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(g) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 2.1, September 2011, IBR approved for § 77.1.
31 U.S.C. 6506; 42 U.S.C. 3334; and E.O. 12372, unless otherwise noted.
Section 79.2 also issued under E.O. 12372.
The revision reads as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Section 299.4 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7821 and 7823.
Section 299.5 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7428(c), 7801(11), 7901.
Section 299.6 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881.
Section 299.7 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881.
Section 299.8 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881.
Section 299.9 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881.
Section 299.10 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881.
Section 299.11 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881.
Section 299.12 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881(a)(3)(B).
Section 299.13 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7844(a)(3)(C), 7883.
Section 299.14 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7844(a)(3)(C), 7883.
Section 299.15 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7844(a)(3)(C), 7883.
Section 299.16 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7883.
Section 299.17 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7883.
Section 299.18 issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(e), 7882, and 7883.
Section 299.19 issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(e) and 7882(a).
Section 299.20 issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(b)(6) and (e), 7881(c)(6), 7882, and 7883.
Section 299.21 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(1).
Section 299.22 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(1).
Section 299.23 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(1).
Section 299.24 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(1).
Section 299.25 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(1).
Section 299.26 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(1).
Section 299.27 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(a)(2).
Section 299.28 issued under 20 U.S.C. 7884(b).
(a)(1) In order to have timely and meaningful consultation, an agency, consortium, or entity must—
(i) Consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the agency, consortium, or entity's program for eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel; and
(ii) Consult before the agency, consortium, or entity makes any decision that affects the opportunities of eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel to participate in the applicable program.
(2) Such consultation must continue throughout the implementation and assessment of equitable services.
(b) Both the agency, consortium, or entity and private school officials must have the goal of reaching agreement on how to provide equitable and effective programs for private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel, including, at a minimum, on issues such as—
(1) How the agency, consortium, or entity will identify the needs of eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel;
(2) What services the agency, consortium, or entity will offer to eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel;
(3) How and when the agency, consortium, or entity will make decisions about the delivery of services;
(4) How, where, and by whom the agency, consortium, or entity will provide services to eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel;
(5) How the agency, consortium, or entity will assess the services and use the results of the assessment to improve those services;
(6) Whether the agency, consortium, or entity will provide services directly or through a separate government agency, consortium, entity, or third-party contractor;
(7) The size and scope of the equitable services that the agency, consortium, or entity will provide to eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel, the amount of funds available for those services, and how that amount is determined; and
(8) Whether to provide equitable services to eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel—
(i) On a school-by-school basis;
(ii) By creating a pool or pools of funds with all the funds allocated under the applicable program based on the amount of funding allocated for equitable services to two or more participating private schools served by the same agency, consortium, or entity, provided that all the affected private schools agree to receive services in this way; or
(iii) By creating a pool or pools of funds with all the funds allocated under the applicable program based on the amount of funding allocated for equitable services to two or more participating private schools served across multiple agencies, consortia, or entities, provided that all the affected private schools agree to receive services in this way.
(c)(1) Consultation must include—
(i) A discussion of service delivery mechanisms the agency, consortium, or entity can use to provide equitable services to eligible private school children and their teachers and other educational personnel; and
(ii) A thorough consideration and analysis of the views of private school officials on the provision of services through a contract with a third-party provider.
(2) If the agency, consortium, or entity disagrees with the views of private school officials on the provision of services through a contract, the agency, consortium, or entity must provide in writing to the private school officials the reasons why the agency, consortium, or entity chooses not to use a contractor.
(d)(1) The agency, consortium, or entity must maintain in its records and provide to the SEA a written affirmation, signed by officials of each private school with participating children or appropriate private school representatives, that the required consultation has occurred. The written affirmation must provide the option for private school officials to indicate such officials' belief that timely and meaningful consultation has not occurred or that the program design is not equitable with respect to eligible private school children.
(2) If private school officials do not provide the affirmations within a reasonable period of time, the agency, consortium, or entity must submit to the SEA documentation that the required consultation occurred.
(e) A private school official has the right to complain to the SEA that the agency, consortium, or entity did not—
(1) Engage in timely and meaningful consultation;
(2) Give due consideration to the views of the private school official; or
(3) Make a decision that treats the private school or its students equitably as required by this section.
A grantee or subgrantee may use program funds to pay for the services of an employee of a private school if:
(a) The employee performs the services outside of his or her regular hours of duty; and
(b) The employee performs the services under public supervision and control.
To help ensure equity for eligible private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel, an SEA must direct the ombudsman designated under section 1117 of the ESEA and § 200.68 to monitor and enforce the requirements in §§ 299.6 through 299.11.
An SEA must include the following in its written resolution of a complaint under an applicable program:
(a) A description of applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
(b) A description of the procedural history of the complaint.
(c) Findings of fact supported by citation, including page numbers, to supporting documents under paragraph (h) of this section.
(d) Analysis and conclusions regarding the requirements.
(e) Corrective actions, if applicable.
(f) A statement of applicable appeal rights.
(g) A statement regarding the State's determination about whether it will provide services.
(h) All documents the SEA relied on in reaching its decision, paginated consecutively.
(a) A party appealing an SEA's written resolution of a complaint, or failure to resolve a complaint, must include the following in its request within 30 days of either the SEA's resolution or the 45-day time limit:
(1) A clear and concise statement of the parts of the SEA's decision being appealed, if applicable.
(2) The legal and factual basis for the appeal.
(3) A copy of the complaint filed with the SEA.
(4) A copy of the SEA's written resolution of the complaint being appealed, if one is available, including all supporting documentation required under § 299.16(h).
(5) Any supporting documentation not included as part of the SEA's written resolution of the complaint being appealed.
(b) Unless substantiating documentation identified in paragraph (a) of this section is provided to the Department, the appeal is not considered complete. Statutory or regulatory time limits are stayed until the appeal is complete as determined by the Department.
(c) In resolving the appeal, if the Department determines that additional information is necessary, all applicable statutory or regulatory time limits are stayed pending receipt of that information.
The regulations in this subpart apply to part A of Title I and applicable programs under section 8501(b)(1) of the ESEA under which the Secretary is authorized to waive the requirements for providing services to private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, and families, as applicable, and to implement a bypass.
(a) The Secretary arranges for a bypass if—
(1) An agency, consortium, or entity is prohibited by law from providing for the participation in programs of children enrolled in, or teachers or other educational personnel from, private elementary and secondary schools, on an equitable basis; or
(2) The Secretary determines that the agency, consortium, or entity has substantially failed, or is unwilling, to provide for that participation as required by section 1117 or 8501 of the ESEA, as applicable.
(b) If the Secretary determines that a bypass is appropriate after following the requirements in §§ 299.21 through 299.26, the Secretary—
(1) Waives the requirements under section 1117 or 8501 of the ESEA, as applicable, for the agency, consortium, or entity; and
(2) Arranges for the provision of equitable services to those children, teachers or other educational personnel, and families, as applicable, through arrangements subject to the requirements of section 1117 or 8501 of the ESEA, as applicable, and sections 8503 and 8504 of the ESEA.
(a) A private school official may request a bypass of an agency, consortium, or entity under the following circumstances:
(1) The private school official has—
(i) Filed a complaint with the State educational agency (SEA) under section 1117(b)(6)(A)-(B) or section 8501(c)(6)(A)-(B) of the ESEA and §§ 299.13 through 299.17 that an agency, consortium, or entity other than the SEA has substantially failed or is unwilling to provide equitable services;
(ii) Requested that the SEA provide equitable services on behalf of the agency, consortium, or entity under section 1117(b)(6)(C) or section 8501(c)(6)(C) of the ESEA; and
(iii) Submitted an appeal of the SEA's resolution of the complaint filed under this paragraph (a)(1) to the Secretary under section 8503(b) of the ESEA and § 299.17.
(2) If an SEA has substantially failed, or is unwilling, to provide equitable services, the private school official has—
(i) Filed a complaint with the SEA under section 8503(a) of the ESEA and §§ 299.13 through 299.16; and
(ii) Submitted an appeal to the Secretary under section 8503(b) of the ESEA and § 299.17 of the SEA's resolution of the complaint filed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section in which the private school official requests a bypass.
(b) An agency, consortium, or entity may request that the Secretary implement a bypass if the agency, consortium, or entity is prohibited by law from providing equitable services under section 1117 or section 8501 of the ESEA.
(a) Before taking any final action to implement a bypass, the Secretary provides the affected agency, consortium, or entity with written notice.
(b) In the written notice, the Secretary—
(1) States the reasons for the proposed bypass in sufficient detail to allow the agency, consortium, or entity to respond;
(2) Cites the requirement that is the basis for the alleged failure to comply; and
(3) Advises the agency, consortium, or entity that it—
(i) Has a deadline (which must not be fewer than 45 days after receiving the written notice) to submit written objections to the proposed bypass; and
(ii) May request in writing the opportunity for a hearing to show cause why the Secretary should not implement the bypass.
(a) Any written submission under § 299.21 must be filed by hand delivery, mail, or email.
(b) The filing date for a written submission is the date on which the document is—
(1) Hand delivered;
(2) Mailed; or
(3) Emailed.
Sections 299.24 through 299.26 describe the procedures that the Secretary uses in conducting a show-cause hearing. The hearing officer may modify the procedures for a particular case if all parties agree that the modification is appropriate.
(a) If an agency, consortium, or entity requests a hearing to show cause why the Secretary should not implement a bypass, the Secretary appoints a hearing officer and notifies appropriate representatives of the affected private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families that they may participate in the hearing.
(b) The hearing officer has no authority to require or conduct discovery or to rule on the validity of any statute or regulation.
(c) The hearing officer notifies the agency, consortium, or entity and representatives of the private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families of the time and place of the hearing.
(a) The following procedures apply to a show-cause hearing regarding implementation of a bypass:
(1) The hearing officer arranges for a transcript to be created.
(2) The agency, consortium, or entity and representatives of the private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families each may—
(i) Be represented by legal counsel; and
(ii) Submit oral or written evidence and arguments at the hearing.
(b) Within 10 days after the hearing, the hearing officer—
(1) Indicates that a decision will be issued based on the existing record; or
(2) Requests further information from the agency, consortium, or entity, representatives of the private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families, or Department officials.
(a)(1) Within 120 days after the record of a show-cause hearing is closed, the hearing officer issues a written decision on whether the Secretary should implement a bypass.
(2) The hearing officer sends copies of the decision to the agency, consortium, or entity; representatives of the private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families; and the Secretary.
(b) Within 30 days after receiving the hearing officer's decision, the agency, consortium, or entity, and representatives of the private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families may each submit to the Secretary written comments on the decision.
(c) The Secretary may adopt, reverse, modify, or remand the hearing officer's decision.
If an agency, consortium, or entity is dissatisfied with the Secretary's final action after a proceeding under §§ 299.13 through 299.26, it may, within 60 days after receiving notice of that action, file a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which it is located.
The Secretary continues a bypass until the Secretary determines, in consultation with the relevant agency, consortium, or entity and representatives of the affected private school children, teachers or other educational personnel, or families, that there will no longer be any failure or inability on the part of the agency, consortium, or entity to meet the requirements for providing services.
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes regulations for seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means related to the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses in Alaska for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 regulatory years. The Federal Subsistence Board (Board) completes the biennial process of revising subsistence hunting and trapping regulations in even-numbered years and subsistence fishing and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years; public proposal and review processes take place during the preceding year. The Board also addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable biennial cycle. This rule also revises the customary and traditional use determinations for wildlife, the general regulations, and a deferred proposal from the last fish cycle.
This rule is effective August 29, 2024.
The comments received on the proposed rule as well as the Board meeting transcripts are available at
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Crystal Lionetti, Director, Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or
Under title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Program provides a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The term “subsistence uses” means the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation or for other specified purposes. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out the Program in the
The Program managers have subsequently amended these regulations many times. Because this program is a joint effort between Interior and Agriculture, these regulations are located in two titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and title 50, “Wildlife and Fisheries,” at 36 CFR 242.1-242.28 and 50 CFR 100.1-100.28, respectively. Consequently, to indicate that identical changes affect regulations in both titles 36 and 50, in this document we present references to specific sections of the CFR as shown in the following example: § __.24.
The Program regulations contain subparts as follows: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife. Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board comprises:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
• The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service (NPS);
• The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
• The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
• The Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service (USDA-FS); and
• Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility, including determinations of which areas or communities in Alaska are nonrural, and specific harvest seasons and limits. The Board receives analytical and administrative assistance from the Interagency Staff Committee, which comprises senior technical experts from FWS, NPS, BLM, BIA, and USDA-FS (per § __.10(d)(7)).
In administering the Program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (RAC). The RACs provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The RAC members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.
The Board conducts rulemaking for the Program on a biennial schedule with the process of revising the fish and shellfish regulations and the process for
The Departments published a proposed rule, Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska—2024-25 and 2025-26 Subsistence Taking of Wildlife Regulations, on February 27, 2023 (88 FR 12285), to amend the regulations in subparts C and D of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 for hunting and trapping seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means related to taking of wildlife for subsistence uses.
The proposed rule opened a comment period, which closed on April 12, 2023. The Departments advertised the proposed rule on the Program's web page and by mail, email, social media, radio, and newspaper. During that period, the RACs met and, in addition to other business, received suggestions for proposals from the public. The Board received a total of 40 proposals. Two of those proposals were withdrawn by the proponent. An additional two proposals were classified as invalid because they were administrative, as opposed to regulatory, in nature. The Board received 38 proposals for changes to the subparts C (for revisions to customary and traditional use determinations) and D regulations (which are specific provisions regarding the take of fish and wildlife). In addition, 18 wildlife closure reviews were presented for comment as required by Board policy, which specifies a review of each closure at least every 4 years. No closure reviews or proposals were deferred from previous fish or wildlife regulatory cycles.
The public submitted 38 comments, which are available for review at
After the comment period closed, the Board prepared a booklet describing the proposals and distributed it to the public. The proposals were also published on the Program's website. The public then had more than 30 days, until June 30, 2023, to comment on the proposed regulatory changes.
The 10 RACs met again, received public comments, and formulated their recommendations to the Board on proposals for their respective regions. Therefore, the public received extensive opportunity to review and comment on all changes.
The RACs had a substantial role in reviewing the proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. Moreover, a RAC Chair, or a designated representative, presented each RAC's recommendations at the Board's public meeting of April 2-5, 2024.
The Board's actions on each wildlife proposal and closure review are listed in table 2 below. When making decisions, the Board may use, but is not limited to, the following guidelines for consideration of whether a proposal:
• provides a subsistence priority on public lands;
• is supported by substantial scientific and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) evidence;
• recognizes principles of fish and wildlife conservation;
• provides opportunity; and
• would not be detrimental to or place undue burden on rural Alaskan subsistence users.
Of the proposals on the consensus agenda, the Board adopted six, adopted one with modification, rejected two, and took no action on one. Of the closure reviews on the consensus agenda, the Board retained the status quo on 10, and rescinded two. Analysis and justification for the action taken on each proposal on the consensus agenda can be found in the Board meeting book and transcripts. Documents are available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management (OSM), 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, AK 99503; at
The final regulations in this document reflect Board review and consideration of RAC recommendations, Tribal and Alaska Native corporation consultations, and public and ADF&G comments. The proposals indicated above in table 2 as “adopted” are reflected in the rule portion of this document as revisions to the Program
The Board has provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements, including publishing a proposed rule in the
In the more than 30 years that the Program has been operating, no benefit to the public has been demonstrated by delaying the effective date of the subsistence regulations. A lapse in regulatory control could affect the continued viability of fish or wildlife populations and future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon the date set forth in
A draft environmental impact statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The record of decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.
A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under
An ANILCA section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.
During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of this rule was conducted in accordance with section 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the rule will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA section 810(a).
This rule contains existing and new information collections. All information collections require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
In accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on our proposal to renew, with revisions, OMB Control Number 1018-0075. This input will help us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden, and it will help the public understand these requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We request OMB approval to renew the existing reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements identified below:
(1)
• Applicants provide information on the permit to identify:
(1) They are a federally qualified subsistence user;
(2) Their community of primary residence for community harvest allocations; and
(3) The unit, season, hunt number, and permit number.
• Question 1 identifies whether the applicant hunted or used a designated hunter.
• Questions 2a through 2e identify success rates by time, location, and take of animal.
• Question 3 identifies date of take and biological data of animal.
(2)
• Applicants provide information on the permit to identify:
(1) They are a federally qualified subsistence user;
(2) Their community of primary residence for community harvest allocations; and
(3) The unit, season, hunt number, and permit number.
• Applicants provide a list of names of other persons they hunted for, their harvest ticket/registration permit, and their community to ensure they are federally qualified subsistence users.
• Remaining information provides harvest data such as unit, drainage or specific location, and number, by sex, of animals taken.
(3)
• Applicants provide information on the permit to identify:
(1) They are a federally qualified subsistence user;
(2) Their community of primary residence for community harvest allocations; and
(3) The unit, season, hunt number, and permit number.
• Remaining information identifies dates, locations, types of gear, fish species, and number of fish harvested for biological and anthropological analysis.
• Depending on in-season management requirements, a condition may be included for certain fisheries that requires a time-specific reporting requirement. This management tool is used only when conservation concerns exist that may require the emergency closure of the fishery to prevent overharvest.
• Must be completed and returned by date designated on permit.
(4)
• Applicants provide information on the permit to identify:
(1) They are a federally qualified subsistence user;
(2) Their community of primary residence for community harvest allocations; and
(3) The unit, season, hunt number, and permit number.
• Applicants identify both for whom they fished and their subsistence permit number. The permit number verifies they are federally qualified users and tracks usage by communities.
• Remaining information tracks species taken, number retained, and gear for biological and anthropological analysis.
(5)
• Applicants provide information on the permit to identify:
(1) They are a federally qualified subsistence user;
(2) Their community of primary residence for community harvest allocations; and
(3) The unit, season, hunt number, and permit number.
• Remaining information tracks date of sales, buyers, and buyers' addresses, total dollar amount, species taken, and fish parts.
(6)
(1) Be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) Include the entire text of applicable State legislation indicating compliance with sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA; and
(3) Set forth all data and arguments available to the State in support of legislative compliance with sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA.
If the Secretaries find that the State's petition contains adequate justification, a rulemaking proceeding for repeal of the regulations in this part will be initiated. If the Secretaries find that the State's petition does not contain adequate justification, the petition will be denied by letter or other notice, with a statement of the grounds for denial.
(7)
• Contact information (name, organization, address, phone number, fax number, email address).
• Type of change (harvest season, harvest limit, method and means of harvest, customary and traditional use determination).
• Regulation to be changed.
• Language for proposed regulation.
• Why the change should be made.
• Impact on populations.
• How the change will affect subsistence uses.
• How the change will affect other uses.
• Communities that have used the resource.
• Where the resource has been harvested.
• Months in which the resource has been harvested.
(8)
• Contact information (name, organization, address, telephone number, fax number, email address).
• Description of the requested action.
• Any unusual or significant changes in resource abundance or unusual conditions affecting harvest opportunities that could not reasonably have been anticipated and that potentially could have significant adverse effects on the health of fish and wildlife populations or subsistence users.
• The necessity of the requested action if required for reasons of public safety or administration.
• Extenuating circumstances that necessitate a regulatory change before the next regulatory review.
(9)
• Contact information (name, organization, address, telephone number, fax number, email address).
• Regulation and the date of
• Statement of how the person is adversely affected by the action.
• Statement of the issues raised by the action, with specific reference to: (1) information not previously considered by the Board; (2) information used by the Board that is incorrect; and (3) how the Board's interpretation of information, applicable law, or regulation is in error or contrary to existing law.
(10)
(1) Name and contact information and other household member who will use the equipment. Fishwheels must be marked with registration permit number; organization's name and address (if applicable), and primary contact person name and telephone number; under ice nets must be marked with the permittee's name and address.
(2) Species of fish taken, number of fish taken, and dates of use.
The new reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements identified below require approval by OMB:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
•
•
•
•
•
(10)
Copies of the forms used with this information collection are available to the public by submitting a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer using one of the methods identified in
On February 27, 2023, we published proposed regulations (RIN 1018-BG72; 88 FR 12285) to announce our intention to request OMB approval of the revisions to this collection explained in question 2 and the simultaneous renewal of OMB Control No. 1018-0075. In that proposed rule, we solicited comments for 60 days on the information collections in this submission, ending on April 28, 2023. We did not receive any comments in response to the information collections contained in the proposed rule.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this rulemaking are a matter of public record. 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.
Send your written comments and suggestions on this information collection by the date indicated in
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this Program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.
Title VIII of ANILCA does not provide specific rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Board provided federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations opportunities to consult on this rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Secretaries, through the Board, provided a variety of opportunities for consultation: commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.
On April 2, 2024, the Board provided federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations a specific opportunity to consult on this rule prior to the start of its public regulatory meeting. Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were notified by mail and telephone and were given the opportunity to attend via teleconference.
This Executive order requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no statement of energy effects is required.
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of Amee Howard of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by:
• Chris McKee, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;
• Kim Jochum, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Jill Klein, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Gregory Risdahl, Alaska Regional Office, USDA Forest Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board amends title 36, part 242, and title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(n)
(1)
(i) Unit 1A consists of all drainages south of the latitude of Lemesurier Point including all drainages into Behm Canal, excluding all drainages of Ernest Sound.
(ii) Unit 1B consists of all drainages between the latitude of Lemesurier Point and the latitude of Cape Fanshaw including all drainages of Ernest Sound and Farragut Bay, and including the islands east of the center lines of Frederick Sound, Dry Strait (between Sergief and Kadin Islands), Eastern Passage, Blake Channel (excluding Blake Island), Ernest Sound, and Seward Passage.
(iii) Unit 1C consists of that portion of Unit 1 draining into Stephens Passage and Lynn Canal north of Cape Fanshaw and south of the latitude of Eldred Rock including Berners Bay, Sullivan Island, and all mainland portions north of Chichagof Island and south of the latitude of Eldred Rock, excluding drainages into Farragut Bay.
(iv) Unit 1D consists of that portion of Unit 1 north of the latitude of Eldred Rock, excluding Sullivan Island and the drainages of Berners Bay.
(v) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) Public lands within Glacier Bay National Park are closed to all taking of wildlife for subsistence uses.
(B) Unit 1A—in the Hyder area, the Salmon River drainage downstream from the Riverside Mine, excluding the Thumb Creek drainage, is closed to the taking of bear.
(C) Unit 1B—the Anan Creek drainage within 1 mile of Anan Creek downstream from the mouth of Anan Lake, including the area within a 1-mile radius from the mouth of Anan Creek Lagoon, is closed to the taking of bear.
(D) Unit 1C:
(
(
(vi) You may not trap furbearers for subsistence uses in Unit 1C, Juneau area, on the following public lands:
(A) A strip within one-quarter mile of the mainland coast between the end of Thane Road and the end of Glacier Highway at Echo Cove;
(B) That area of the Mendenhall Valley bounded on the south by the Glacier Highway, on the west by the Mendenhall Loop Road and Montana Creek Road and Spur Road to Mendenhall Lake, on the north by Mendenhall Lake, and on the east by the Mendenhall Loop Road and Forest Service Glacier Spur Road to the Forest Service Visitor Center;
(C) That area within the U.S. Forest Service Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area; and
(D) A strip within one-quarter mile of the following trails as designated on U.S. Geological Survey maps: Herbert Glacier Trail, Windfall Lake Trail, Peterson Lake Trail, Spaulding Meadows Trail (including the loop trail), Nugget Creek Trail, Outer Point Trail, Dan Moller Trail, Perseverance Trail, Granite Creek Trail, Mt. Roberts Trail and Nelson Water Supply Trail, Sheep Creek Trail, and Point Bishop Trail.
(vii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may hunt black bear with bait in Units 1A, 1B, and 1D between April 15 and June 15.
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(C) Coyotes taken incidentally with a trap or snare during an open Federal trapping season for wolf, wolverine, or beaver may be legally retained.
(D) A firearm may be used to take beaver under a trapping license during an open beaver season, except on National Park Service lands.
(2)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(C) Coyotes taken incidentally with a trap or snare during an open Federal trapping season for wolf, wolverine, or beaver may be legally retained.
(D) A firearm may be used to take beaver under a trapping license during an open beaver season, except on National Park Service lands.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) In the Petersburg vicinity, you may not take ungulates, bear, wolves, and wolverine along a strip one-fourth mile wide on each side of the Mitkof Highway from Milepost 0 to Crystal Lake campground.
(B) You may not take black bears in the Petersburg Creek drainage on Kupreanof Island.
(C) You may not hunt in the Blind Slough draining into Wrangell Narrows and a strip one-fourth-mile wide on
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(C) Coyotes taken incidentally with a trap or snare during an open Federal trapping season for wolf, wolverine, or beaver may be legally retained.
(D) A firearm may be used to take beaver under a trapping license during an open beaver season, except on National Park Service lands.
(4)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take brown bears in the Seymour Canal Closed Area (Admiralty Island) including all drainages into northwestern Seymour Canal between Staunch Point and the southernmost tip of the unnamed peninsula separating Swan Cove and King Salmon Bay including Swan and Windfall Islands.
(B) You may not take brown bears in the Salt Lake Closed Area (Admiralty Island) including all lands within one-fourth mile of Salt Lake above Klutchman Rock at the head of Mitchell Bay.
(C) You may not take brown bears in the Port Althorp Closed Area (Chichagof Island), that area within the Port Althorp watershed south of a line from Point Lucan to Salt Chuck Point (Trap Rock).
(D) You may not use any motorized land vehicle for brown bear hunting in the Northeast Chichagof Controlled Use Area (NECCUA) consisting of all portions of Unit 4 on Chichagof Island north of Tenakee Inlet and east of the drainage divide from the northwestern point of Gull Cove to Port Frederick Portage, including all drainages into Port Frederick and Mud Bay.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may shoot ungulates from a boat. You may not shoot bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(B) Five Federal registration permits will be issued by the Sitka or Hoonah District Ranger for the taking of brown bear for educational purposes associated with teaching customary and traditional subsistence harvest and use practices. Any bear taken under an educational permit does not count in an individual's one bear every 4 regulatory years limit.
(C) Coyotes taken incidentally with a trap or snare during an open Federal trapping season for wolf, wolverine, or beaver may be legally retained.
(D) A firearm may be used to take beaver under a trapping license during an open beaver season, except on National Park Service lands.
(5)
(A) Unit 5A consists of all drainages east of Yakutat Bay, Disenchantment Bay, and the eastern edge of Hubbard Glacier, and includes the islands of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays; In Unit 5A, Nunatak Bench is defined as that area east of the Hubbard Glacier, north of Nunatak fiord, and north and east of the East Nunatak Glacier to the Canadian border.
(B) Unit 5B consists of the remainder of Unit 5.
(ii) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on public lands within Glacier Bay National Park.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(C) You may hunt brown bear in Unit 5 with a Federal registration permit in lieu of a State metal locking tag if you have obtained a Federal registration permit prior to hunting.
(D) Coyotes taken incidentally with a trap or snare during an open Federal trapping season for wolf, wolverine, or beaver may be legally retained.
(E) A firearm may be used to take beaver under a trapping license during an open beaver season, except on National Park Service lands.
(6)
(A) Unit 6A consists of Gulf of Alaska drainages east of Palm Point near Katalla including Kanak, Wingham, and Kayak Islands.
(B) Unit 6B consists of Gulf of Alaska and Copper River Basin drainages west of Palm Point near Katalla, east of the west bank of the Copper River, and east of a line from Flag Point to Cottonwood Point.
(C) Unit 6C consists of drainages west of the west bank of the Copper River, and west of a line from Flag Point to Cottonwood Point, and drainages east of the east bank of Rude River and drainages into the eastern shore of Nelson Bay and Orca Inlet.
(D) Unit 6D consists of the remainder of Unit 6.
(ii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15. In addition, you may use bait in Unit 6D between June 16 and June 30. The harvest quota in Unit 6D is 20 bears taken with bait between June 16 and June 30.
(B) You may take coyotes in Units 6B and 6C with the aid of artificial lights.
(C) One permit will be issued by the Cordova District Ranger to the Native Village of Eyak to take one moose from Federal lands in Unit 6B or 6C for their annual Memorial/Sobriety Day potlatch.
(D) A federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) who is either blind, 65 years of age or older, at least 70 percent disabled, or temporarily disabled may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take any moose, deer, black bear, and beaver on his or her behalf in Unit 6 and goat in Unit 6D. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but may have no
(E) A hunter younger than 10 years old at the start of the hunt may not be issued a Federal subsistence permit to harvest black bear, deer, goat, moose, wolf, and wolverine.
(F) A hunter younger than 10 years old may harvest black bear, deer, goat, moose, wolf, and wolverine under the direct, immediate supervision of a licensed adult, at least 18 years old. The animal taken is counted against the adult's harvest limit. The adult is responsible for ensuring that all legal requirements are met.
(G) Up to five permits will be issued by the Cordova District Ranger to the Native Village of Chenega annually to harvest up to five deer total from Federal public lands in Unit 6D for their annual Old Chenega Memorial and other traditional memorial potlatch ceremonies. Permits will have effective dates of July 1-June 30.
(H) Up to five permits will be issued by the Cordova District Ranger to the Tatitlek IRA Council annually to harvest up to five deer total from Federal public lands in Unit 6D for their annual Cultural Heritage Week. Permits will have effective dates of July 1-June 30.
(7)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Kenai Fjords National Park.
(B) You may not hunt in the Portage Glacier Closed Area in Unit 7, which consists of Portage Creek drainages between the Anchorage-Seward Railroad and Placer Creek in Bear Valley, Portage Lake, the mouth of Byron Creek, Glacier Creek, and Byron Glacier; however, you may hunt grouse, ptarmigan, hares, and squirrels with shotguns after September 1.
(C) You may not hunt, trap, or take wildlife within a quarter mile of wildlife crossing structures along the Sterling Highway.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15, except in the drainages of Resurrection Creek and its tributaries.
(B) [Reserved]
(8)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may take beaver with a firearm in Unit 8 from Nov. 10 through Apr. 30.
(B) You may hunt brown bear in Unit 8 with a Federal registration permit in lieu of a State locking tag if you have obtained a Federal registration permit prior to hunting.
(ii) [Reserved]
(9)
(A) Unit 9A consists of that portion of Unit 9 draining into Shelikof Strait and Cook Inlet between the southern boundary of Unit 16 (Redoubt Creek) and the northern boundary of Katmai National Park and Preserve.
(B) Unit 9B consists of the Kvichak River drainage except those lands drained by the Kvichak River/Bay between the Alagnak River drainage and the Naknek River drainage.
(C) Unit 9C consists of the Alagnak (Branch) River drainage, the Naknek River drainage, lands drained by the Kvichak River/Bay between the Alagnak River drainage and the Naknek River drainage, and all land and water within Katmai National Park and Preserve.
(D) Unit 9D consists of all Alaska Peninsula drainages west of a line from the southernmost head of Port Moller to the head of American Bay, including the Shumagin Islands and other islands of Unit 9 west of the Shumagin Islands.
(E) Unit 9E consists of the remainder of Unit 9.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in Katmai National Park; and
(B) You may not use motorized vehicles, except aircraft, boats, or snowmobiles used for hunting and transporting a hunter or harvested animal parts from Aug. 1 through Nov. 30 in the Naknek Controlled Use Area, which includes all of Unit 9C within the Naknek River drainage upstream from and including the King Salmon Creek drainage; however, you may use a motorized vehicle on the Naknek-King Salmon, Lake Camp, and Rapids Camp roads and on the King Salmon Creek trail, and on frozen surfaces of the Naknek River and Big Creek.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 9B from April 1 through May 31 and in the remainder of Unit 9 from April 1 through 30.
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag in Unit 9B, except that portion within the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting.
(C) In Unit 9B, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, residents of Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Port Alsworth, and that portion of the park resident zone in Unit 9B and 13.440 permit holders may hunt brown bear by Federal registration permit in lieu of a resident tag. The season will be closed when 4 females or 10 bears have been taken, whichever occurs first. The permits will be issued and closure announcements made by the Superintendent of Lake Clark National Park and Preserve.
(D) Residents of Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, and Port Alsworth may take up to a total of 10 bull moose in Unit 9B for ceremonial purposes, under the terms of a Federal registration permit from July 1 through June 30. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of a local organization. This 10-moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted for potlatches by the State.
(E) For Units 9C and 9E only, a federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) of Units 9C and 9E may designate another federally qualified subsistence user of Units 9C and 9E to take bull caribou on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report and turn over all meat to the recipient. There is no restriction on the number of possession limits the designated hunter may have in his/her possession at any one time.
(F) For Unit 9D, a federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take caribou on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but may have no more than four harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(G) The communities of False Pass, King Cove, Cold Bay, Sand Point, and Nelson Lagoon annually may each take, from October 1 through December 31 or May 10 through 25, one brown bear for ceremonial purposes, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. A permit will be issued to an individual only at the request of a local organization. The
(H) You may hunt brown bear in Unit 9E with a Federal registration permit in lieu of a State locking tag if you have obtained a Federal registration permit prior to hunting.
(I) In Units 9B and 9C, a snowmachine may be used to approach and pursue a wolf or wolverine provided the snowmachine does not contact a live animal.
(10)
(ii) You may not take any wildlife species for subsistence uses on Otter Island in the Pribilof Islands.
(iii) In Unit 10—Unimak Island only, a federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take caribou on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but may have no more than four harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(iv) The communities of False Pass, King Cove, Cold Bay, Sand Point, and Nelson Lagoon annually may each take, from October 1 through December 31 or May 10 through 25, one brown bear for ceremonial purposes, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. A permit will be issued to an individual only at the request of a local organization. The brown bear may be taken from either Unit 9D or Unit 10 (Unimak Island) only.
(11)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black and brown bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) One moose without calf may be taken from June 20 through July 31 in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve in Unit 11 or Unit 12 for the Batzulnetas Culture Camp. Two hunters from either Chistochina or Mentasta Village may be designated by the Mt. Sanford Tribal Consortium to receive the Federal subsistence harvest permit. The permit may be obtained from a Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve office.
(C) For federally qualified subsistence users living within the Ahtna traditional communities of Chistochina, Chitina,
(
(
(
(
(ii) A joint permit may be issued to a pair of a minor and an elder to hunt sheep during the Aug. 1-Oct. 20 hunt. The following conditions apply:
(A) The permittees must be a minor aged 8 to 15 years old and an accompanying adult 60 years of age or older.
(B) Both the elder and the minor must be federally qualified subsistence users with a positive customary and traditional use determination for the area they want to hunt.
(C) The minor must hunt under the direct immediate supervision of the accompanying adult, who is responsible for ensuring that all legal requirements are met.
(D) Only one animal may be harvested with this permit. The sheep harvested will count against the harvest limits of both the minor and accompanying adult.
(12)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black and brown bear between April 15 and June 30; you may use bait to hunt wolves on FWS and BLM lands.
(B) You may not use a steel trap, or a snare using cable smaller than 3/32-inch diameter to trap coyotes or wolves in Unit 12 during April and October.
(C) One moose without calf may be taken from June 20 through July 31 in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve in Unit 11 or Unit 12 for the Batzulnetas Culture Camp. Two hunters from either Chistochina or Mentasta Village may be designated by the Mt. Sanford Tribal Consortium to receive the Federal subsistence harvest permit. The permit may be obtained from a Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve office.
(D) A community harvest system for caribou and moose is authorized on Federal public lands in Unit 12 within the Tok and Little Tok River drainages south of the Tok River bridge and east of the Tok Cutoff Road, and within the Nabesna River drainage west of the east bank of the Nabesna River upstream from the southern boundary of Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge and that portion of Unit 12 that is east of the Nabesna River and south of the Pickerel Lake Winter Trail running southeast from Pickerel Lake to the Canadian border. This community harvest system is for federally qualified subsistence users living within the Ahtna traditional communities of Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, Gakona, Gulkana, Mentasta Lake, and Tazlina and is subject to the framework established by the Federal Subsistence Board.
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) A joint permit may be issued to a pair of a minor and an elder to hunt sheep during the Aug. 1-Oct. 20 hunt. The following conditions apply:
(A) The permittees must be a minor aged 8 to 15 years old and an accompanying adult 60 years of age or older.
(B) Both the elder and the minor must be federally qualified subsistence users with a positive customary and traditional use determination for the area they want to hunt.
(C) The minor must hunt under the direct immediate supervision of the accompanying adult, who is responsible for ensuring that all legal requirements are met.
(D) Only one animal may be harvested with this permit. The sheep harvested will count against the harvest limits of both the minor and accompanying adult.
(13)
(A) Unit 13A consists of that portion of Unit 13 bounded by a line beginning at the Chickaloon River bridge at Mile 77.7 on the Glenn Highway, then along the Glenn Highway to its junction with the Richardson Highway, then south along the Richardson Highway to the foot of Simpson Hill at Mile 111.5, then east to the east bank of the Copper River, then northerly along the east bank of the Copper River to its junction with the Gulkana River, then northerly along the west bank of the Gulkana River to its junction with the West Fork of the Gulkana River, then westerly along the west bank of the West Fork of the Gulkana River to its source, an unnamed lake, then across the divide into the Tyone River drainage, down an unnamed stream into the Tyone River, then down the Tyone River to the Susitna River, then down the south bank of the Susitna River to the mouth of Kosina Creek, then up Kosina Creek to its headwaters, then across the divide and down Aspen Creek to the Talkeetna River, then southerly along the boundary of Unit 13 to the Chickaloon River bridge, the point of beginning.
(B) Unit 13B consists of that portion of Unit 13 bounded by a line beginning at the confluence of the Copper River and the Gulkana River, then up the east bank of the Copper River to the Gakona River, then up the Gakona River and Gakona Glacier to the boundary of Unit 13, then westerly along the boundary of Unit 13 to the Susitna Glacier, then southerly along the west bank of the Susitna Glacier and the Susitna River to the Tyone River, then up the Tyone River and across the divide to the headwaters of the West Fork of the Gulkana River, then down the West Fork of the Gulkana River to the confluence of the Gulkana River and the Copper River, the point of beginning.
(C) Unit 13C consists of that portion of Unit 13 east of the Gakona River and Gakona Glacier.
(D) Unit 13D consists of that portion of Unit 13 south of Unit 13A.
(E) Unit 13E consists of the remainder of Unit 13.
(ii) Within the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on lands within Mount McKinley National Park as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (n)(13) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980.
(B) You may not use motorized vehicles or pack animals for hunting Aug. 5-25 in the Delta Controlled Use Area, the boundary of which is defined as: a line beginning at the confluence of Miller Creek and the Delta River, then west to vertical angle benchmark Miller, then west to include all drainages of Augustana Creek and Black Rapids Glacier, then north and east to include all drainages of McGinnis Creek to its confluence with the Delta River, then east in a straight line across the Delta River to Mile 236.7 Richardson Highway, then north along the Richardson Highway to its junction with the Alaska Highway, then east along the Alaska Highway to the west bank of the Johnson River, then south along the west bank of the Johnson River and Johnson Glacier to the head of the Cantwell Glacier, then west along the north bank of the Cantwell Glacier and Miller Creek to the Delta River.
(C) Except for access and transportation of harvested wildlife on Sourdough and Haggard Creeks, Middle Fork trails, or other trails designated by the Board, you may not use motorized vehicles for subsistence hunting in the Sourdough Controlled Use Area. The Sourdough Controlled Use Area consists of that portion of Unit 13B bounded by a line beginning at the confluence of Sourdough Creek and the Gulkana River, then northerly along Sourdough Creek to the Richardson Highway at approximately Mile 148, then northerly along the Richardson Highway to the Middle Fork Trail at approximately Mile 170, then westerly along the trail to the Gulkana River, then southerly along the east bank of the Gulkana River to its confluence with Sourdough Creek, the point of beginning.
(D) You may not use any motorized vehicle or pack animal for hunting, including the transportation of hunters, their hunting gear, and/or parts of game from July 26 through September 30 in the Tonsina Controlled Use Area. The Tonsina Controlled Use Area consists of that portion of Unit 13D bounded on the west by the Richardson Highway from the Tiekel River to the Tonsina River at Tonsina, on the north along the south bank of the Tonsina River to where the Edgerton Highway crosses the Tonsina River, then along the Edgerton Highway to Chitina, on the east by the Copper River from Chitina to the Tiekel River, and on the south by the north bank of the Tiekel River.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) Upon written request by the Camp Director to the Glennallen Field Office, 2 caribou, sex to be determined by the Glennallen Field Office Manager of the BLM, may be taken from Aug. 10 through Sep. 30 or Oct. 21 through Mar. 31 by Federal registration permit for the Hudson Lake Residential Treatment Camp. Additionally, 1 bull moose may be taken Aug. 1 through Sep. 20. The animals may be taken by any federally qualified hunter designated by the Camp Director. The hunter must have in his/her possession the permit and a designated hunter permit during all periods that are being hunted.
(C) A community harvest system for caribou and moose is authorized on Federal public lands within Unit 13, subject to the framework established by the Federal Subsistence Board, for federally qualified subsistence users living within the Ahtna traditional communities of Cantwell, Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, Gakona, Gulkana, Mentasta Lake, and Tazlina.
(
(
(
(
(14)
(A) Unit 14A consists of drainages in Unit 14 bounded on the west by the east bank of the Susitna River, on the north by the north bank of Willow Creek and Peters Creek to its headwaters, then east along the hydrologic divide separating the Susitna River and Knik Arm drainages to the outlet creek at lake 4408, on the east by the eastern boundary of Unit 14, and on the south by Cook Inlet, Knik Arm, the south bank of the Knik River from its mouth to its junction with Knik Glacier, across the face of Knik Glacier and along the northern side of Knik Glacier to the Unit 6 boundary.
(B) Unit 14B consists of that portion of Unit 14 north of Unit 14A.
(C) Unit 14C consists of that portion of Unit 14 south of Unit 14A.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base Management Areas, consisting of the Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Military Reservations; and
(B) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Anchorage Management Area, consisting of all drainages south of Elmendorf and Fort Richardson military reservations and north of and including Rainbow Creek.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(15)
(A) Unit 15A consists of that portion of Unit 15 north of the north bank of the Kenai River and the northern shore of Skilak Lake.
(B) Unit 15B consists of that portion of Unit 15 south of the north bank of the Kenai River and the northern shore of Skilak Lake, and north of the north bank of the Kasilof River, the northern shore of Tustumena Lake, Glacier Creek, and Tustumena Glacier.
(C) Unit 15C consists of the remainder of Unit 15.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife, except for grouse, ptarmigan, and hares that may be taken only from October 1 through March 1 by bow and arrow only, in the Skilak Loop Management Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 15A bounded by a line beginning at the easternmost junction of the Sterling Highway and the Skilak Loop (milepost 76.3), then due south to the south bank of the Kenai River, then southerly along the south bank of the Kenai River to its confluence with Skilak Lake, then westerly along the northern shore of Skilak Lake to Lower Skilak Lake Campground, then northerly along the Lower Skilak Lake Campground Road and the Skilak Loop Road to its westernmost junction with the Sterling Highway, then easterly along the Sterling Highway to the point of beginning.
(B) You may not hunt, trap, or take wildlife within a quarter mile of wildlife crossing structures along the Sterling Highway.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) You may not trap furbearers for subsistence in the Skilak Loop Wildlife Management Area.
(C) You may not trap marten in that portion of Unit 15B east of the Kenai River, Skilak Lake, Skilak River, and Skilak Glacier.
(D) You may not take red fox in Unit 15 by any means other than a steel trap or snare.
(16)
(A) Unit 16A consists of that portion of Unit 16 east of the east bank of the Yentna River from its mouth upstream to the Kahiltna River, east of the east bank of the Kahiltna River, and east of the Kahiltna Glacier; and
(B) Unit 16B consists of the remainder of Unit 16.
(ii) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Mount McKinley National Park, as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (n)(16) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) [Reserved]
(17)
(A) Unit 17A consists of the drainages between Cape Newenham and Cape Constantine, and Hagemeister Island and the Walrus Islands.
(B) Unit 17B consists of the Nushagak River drainage upstream from, and including the Mulchatna River drainage and the Wood River drainage upstream from the outlet of Lake Beverley.
(C) Unit 17C consists of the remainder of Unit 17.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) Except for aircraft and boats and in legal hunting camps, you may not use any motorized vehicle for hunting ungulates, bear, wolves, and wolverine, including transportation of hunters and parts of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine in the Upper Mulchatna Controlled Use Area consisting of Unit 17B, from Aug. 1 through Nov. 1.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting.
(C) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 17 from April 15 through May 31. You may not take beaver with a firearm under a trapping license on National Park Service lands.
(D) In Unit 17, a snowmachine may be used to assist in the taking of a caribou, and caribou may be shot from a stationary snowmachine. “Assist in the taking of a caribou” means a snowmachine may be used to approach within 300 yards of a caribou at speeds under 15 miles per hour, in a manner that does not involve repeated approaches or that causes a caribou to run. A snowmachine may not be used to contact an animal or to pursue a fleeing caribou.
(18)
(ii) In the Kalskag Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 18 bounded by a line from Lower Kalskag on the Kuskokwim River, northwesterly to Russian Mission on the Yukon River, then east along the north bank of the Yukon River to the old site of Paimiut, then back to Lower Kalskag, you are not allowed to use aircraft for hunting any ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine, including the transportation of any hunter and ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine part; however, this does not apply to transportation of a hunter or ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the Controlled Use Area or between a publicly owned airport within the Area and points outside the Area.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 18 from April 1 through June 10.
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting.
(C) You may take caribou from a boat moving under power in Unit 18.
(D) You may take moose from a boat moving under power in that portion of Unit 18 west of a line running from the mouth of the Ishkowik River to the closest point of Dall Lake, then to the east bank of the Johnson River at its entrance into Nunavakanukakslak Lake (N 60°59.41′ Latitude; W 162°22.14′ Longitude), continuing upriver along a line
(E) Taking of wildlife in Unit 18 while in possession of lead shot size T, .20 caliber or less in diameter, is prohibited.
(F) You may not pursue with a motorized vehicle an ungulate that is at or near a full gallop.
(G) You may use artificial light when taking a bear at a den site.
(19)
(A) Unit 19A consists of the Kuskokwim River drainage downstream from and including the George River drainage and downstream from and excluding the Downey Creek drainage.
(B) Unit 19B consists of the Aniak River drainage upstream from and including the Salmon River drainage, the Holitna River drainage upstream from and including the Bakbuk Creek drainage, that area south of a line from the mouth of Bakbuk Creek to the radar dome at Sparrevohn Air Force Base, including the Hoholitna River drainage upstream from that line, and the Stony River drainage upstream from and including the Can Creek drainage.
(C) Unit 19C consists of that portion of Unit 19 south and east of a line from Benchmark M#1.26 (approximately 1.26 miles south of the northwestern corner
(D) Unit 19D consists of that portion drained by the Kuskokwim River drainage upstream from and including the Swift River drainage, excluding Unit 19C.
(E) Unit 19E consists of the remainder of Unit 19.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on lands within Mount McKinley National Park as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (n)(19) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980.
(B) In the Upper Kuskokwim Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 19D upstream from the mouth of the Selatna River, but excluding the Selatna and Black River drainages, to a line extending from Dyckman Mountain on the northern Unit 19D boundary southeast to the 1,610-foot crest of Munsatli Ridge, then south along Munsatli Ridge to the 2,981-foot peak of Telida Mountain, then northeast to the intersection of the western boundary of Denali National Preserve with the Minchumina-Telida winter trail, then south along the western boundary of Denali National Preserve to the southern boundary of Unit 19D, you may not use aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or moose part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the Controlled Use Area, or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30.
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag in those portions of Units 19A and 19B downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting.
(C) In Unit 19C, individual residents of Nikolai may harvest sheep during the Aug. 10 to Sep. 20 season and not have that animal count against the community harvest limit (during the Oct. 1 to Mar. 30 season). Individual residents of Nikolai that harvest a sheep under State regulations may not participate in the Oct. 1 to Mar. 30 community harvest.
(20)
(A) Unit 20A consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded on the south by the Unit 13 boundary, bounded on the east by the west bank of the Delta River, bounded on the north by the north bank of the Tanana River from its confluence with the Delta River downstream to its confluence with the Nenana River, and bounded on the west by the east bank of the Nenana River.
(B) Unit 20B consists of drainages into the northern bank of the Tanana River from and including Hot Springs Slough upstream to and including the Banner Creek drainage.
(C) Unit 20C consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded on the east by the east bank of the Nenana River and on the north by the north bank of the Tanana River downstream from the Nenana River.
(D) Unit 20D consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded on the east by the east bank of the Robertson River and on the west by the west bank of the Delta River, and drainages into the north bank of the Tanana River from its confluence with the Robertson River downstream to, but excluding, the Banner Creek drainage.
(E) Unit 20E consists of drainages into the south bank of the Yukon River upstream from and including the Charley River drainage, and the Ladue River drainage.
(F) Unit 20F consists of the remainder of Unit 20.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on lands within Mount McKinley National Park as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (n)(20) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980.
(B) You may not use motorized vehicles or pack animals for hunting Aug. 5-25 in the Delta Controlled Use Area, the boundary of which is defined as: a line beginning at the confluence of Miller Creek and the Delta River, then west to vertical angle benchmark Miller, then west to include all drainages of Augustana Creek and Black Rapids Glacier, then north and east to include all drainages of McGinnis Creek to its confluence with the Delta River, then east in a straight line across the Delta River to Mile 236.7 of the Richardson Highway, then north along the Richardson Highway to its junction with the Alaska Highway, then east along the Alaska Highway to the west bank of the Johnson River, then south along the west bank of the Johnson River and Johnson Glacier to the head of the Canwell Glacier, then west along the north bank of the Canwell Glacier and Miller Creek to the Delta River.
(C) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats, in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife.
(D) You may not use any motorized vehicle for hunting August 5-September 20 in the Glacier Mountain Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 20E bounded by a line beginning at Mile 140 of the Taylor Highway, then north along the highway to Eagle, then west along the cat trail from Eagle to Crooked Creek, then from Crooked Creek southwest along the west bank of Mogul Creek to its headwaters on North Peak, then west across North Peak to the headwaters of Independence Creek, then southwest along the west bank of Independence Creek to its confluence with the North Fork of the Fortymile River, then easterly along the south bank of the North Fork of the Fortymile River to its confluence with Champion Creek, then across the North Fork of the Fortymile River to the south bank of Champion Creek and easterly along the south bank of Champion Creek to its confluence with Little Champion Creek, then northeast along the east bank of Little Champion Creek to its headwaters, then northeasterly in a direct line to Mile 140 on the Taylor Highway; however, this does not prohibit motorized access via, or transportation of harvested wildlife on, the Taylor Highway or any airport.
(E) You may by permit hunt moose on the Minto Flats Management Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 20
(F) You may hunt moose only by bow and arrow in the Fairbanks Management Area. The Area consists of that portion of Unit 20B bounded by a line from the confluence of Rosie Creek and the Tanana River, northerly along Rosie Creek to Isberg Road, then northeasterly on Isberg Road to Cripple Creek Road, then northeasterly on Cripple Creek Road to the Parks Highway, then north on the Parks Highway to Alder Creek, then westerly to the middle fork of Rosie Creek through section 26 to the Parks Highway, then east along the Parks Highway to Alder Creek, then upstream along Alder Creek to its confluence with Emma Creek, then upstream along Emma Creek to its headwaters, then northerly along the hydrographic divide between Goldstream Creek drainages and Cripple Creek drainages to the summit of Ester Dome, then down Sheep Creek to its confluence with Goldstream Creek, then easterly along Goldstream Creek to Sheep Creek Road, then north on Sheep Creek Road to Murphy Dome Road, then west on Murphy Dome Road to Old Murphy Dome Road, then east on Old Murphy Dome Road to the Elliot Highway, then south on the Elliot Highway to Goldstream Creek, then easterly along Goldstream Creek to its confluence with First Chance Creek, Davidson Ditch, then southeasterly along the Davidson Ditch to its confluence with the tributary to Goldstream Creek in Section 29, then downstream along the tributary to its confluence with Goldstream Creek, then in a straight line to First Chance Creek, then up First Chance Creek to Tungsten Hill, then southerly along Steele Creek to its confluence with Ruby Creek, then upstream along Ruby Creek to Esro Road, then south on Esro Road to Chena Hot Springs Road, then east on Chena Hot Springs Road to Nordale Road, then south on Nordale Road to the Chena River, to its intersection with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right of way, then southeasterly along the easterly edge of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right of way to the Chena River, then along the north bank of the Chena River to the Moose Creek dike, then southerly along the Moose Creek dike to its intersection with the Tanana River, and then westerly along the north bank of the Tanana River to the point of beginning.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear April 15-June 30; you may use bait to hunt wolves on FWS and BLM lands.
(B) You may not use a steel trap or a snare using cable smaller than 3/32-inch diameter to trap coyotes or wolves in Unit 20E during April and October.
(C) Residents of Units 20 and 21 may take up to three moose per regulatory year for the celebration known as the Nuchalawoyya Potlatch, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals at the request of the Native Village of Tanana only. This three-moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted by the State.
(21)
(A) Unit 21A consists of the Innoko River drainage upstream from and including the Iditarod River drainage.
(B) Unit 21B consists of the Yukon River drainage upstream from Ruby and east of the Ruby-Poorman Road, downstream from and excluding the Tozitna River and Tanana River drainages, and excluding the Melozitna River drainage upstream from Grayling Creek.
(C) Unit 21C consists of the Melozitna River drainage upstream from Grayling Creek, and the Dulbi River drainage upstream from and including the Cottonwood Creek drainage.
(D) Unit 21D consists of the Yukon River drainage from and including the Blackburn Creek drainage upstream to Ruby, including the area west of the Ruby-Poorman Road, excluding the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from the Dulbi River drainage, and excluding the Dulbi River drainage upstream from Cottonwood Creek.
(E) Unit 21E consists of that portion of Unit 21 in the Yukon River and Arhymot Lake drainages upstream from a line starting at the downriver boundary of Paimiut on the north bank of the Yukon River, then south across the Yukon River to the northern terminus of the Paimiut Portage, then south along the Portage to its intersection with Arhymot Lake, then along the northern and western bank of Arhymot Lake to the outlet at Crooked Creek (locally known as Johnson River) drainage, then to, but not including, the Blackburn Creek drainage, and the Innoko River drainage downstream from the Iditarod River drainage.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) The Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, which consists of those portions of Units 21 and 24 bounded by a line from the north bank of the Yukon River at Koyukuk at 64°52.58′ N lat., 157°43.10′ W long., then northerly to the confluences of the Honhosa and Kateel Rivers at 65°28.42′ N lat.,
(B) The Paradise Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 21 bounded by a line beginning at the old village of Paimiut, then north along the west bank of the Yukon River to Paradise, then northwest to the mouth of Stanstrom Creek on the Bonasila River, then northeast to the mouth of the Anvik River, then along the west bank of the Yukon River to the lower end of Eagle Island (approximately 45 miles north of Grayling), then to the mouth of the Iditarod River, then extending 2 miles easterly down the east bank of the Innoko River to its confluence with Paimiut Slough, then south along the east bank of Paimiut Slough to its mouth, and then to the old village of Paimiut, is closed during moose hunting seasons to the use of aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or part of moose; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or part of moose by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the Controlled Use Area or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area.
(iii) In Unit 21D, you may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. Aircraft may not be used in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears; however, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30; and in the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, you may also use bait to hunt black bear between September 1 and September 25.
(B) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 21(E) from Nov. 1 through June 10.
(C) The residents of Units 20 and 21 may take up to three moose per regulatory year for the celebration known as the Nuchalawoyya Potlatch, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of the Native Village of Tanana. This three-moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted by the State.
(D) The residents of Unit 21 may take up to three moose per regulatory year for the celebration known as the Kaltag/Nulato Stickdance, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of the Native Village of Kaltag or Nulato. This three-moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted by the State.
(22)
(A) Unit 22A consists of Norton Sound drainages from, but excluding, the Pastolik River drainage to, and including, the Ungalik River drainage, and Stuart and Besboro Islands.
(B) Unit 22B consists of Norton Sound drainages from, but excluding, the Ungalik River drainage to, and including, the Topkok Creek drainage.
(C) Unit 22C consists of Norton Sound and Bering Sea drainages from, but excluding, the Topkok Creek drainage to, and including, the Tisuk River drainage, and King and Sledge Islands.
(D) Unit 22D consists of that portion of Unit 22 draining into the Bering Sea north of, but not including, the Tisuk River to and including Cape York and St. Lawrence Island.
(E) Unit 22E consists of Bering Sea, Bering Strait, Chukchi Sea, and Kotzebue Sound drainages from Cape York to, but excluding, the Goodhope River drainage, and including Little Diomede Island and Fairway Rock.
(ii) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. Aircraft may not be used in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears; however, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 22 during the established seasons.
(B) Coyote, incidentally taken with a trap or snare, may be used for subsistence purposes.
(C) A snowmachine may be used to position a hunter to select individual caribou for harvest provided that the animals are not shot from a moving snowmachine.
(D) The taking of one bull moose and up to three musk oxen by the community of Wales is allowed for the celebration of the Kingikmuit Dance Festival under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of the Native Village of Wales. The harvest may occur only within regularly established seasons in Unit 22E. The harvest will count against any established quota for the area.
(E) A federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take musk oxen on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must get a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients in the course of a season, but have no more than two harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time, except in Unit 22E where a resident of Wales or Shishmaref acting as a designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients, but have no more than four harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(23)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use aircraft in any manner either for hunting of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine, or for transportation of hunters or harvested species in the Noatak Controlled Use Area for the period August 15-September 30. The Area consists of that portion of Unit 23 in a corridor extending 5 miles on either side of the Noatak River beginning at the mouth of the Noatak River, and extending upstream to the mouth of Sapun Creek. This closure does not apply to the transportation of hunters or parts of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine by regularly scheduled flights to communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled air service.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) You may not use aircraft in any manner for brown bear hunting, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears; however, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may take caribou while hunting from a boat moving under power in Unit 23.
(B) In addition to other restrictions on method of take found in this section, you may also take swimming caribou with a firearm using rimfire cartridges.
(C) If you have a trapping license, you may take beaver with a firearm in all of Unit 23 from Nov. 1 through June 10.
(D) For the Baird and DeLong Mountain sheep hunts—a federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take sheep on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for only one recipient in the course of a season and may have both his and the recipients' harvest limits in his/her possession at the same time.
(E) A snowmachine may be used to position a hunter to select individual caribou for harvest provided that the animals are not shot from a moving snowmachine. On BLM-managed lands only, a snowmachine may be used to position a caribou, wolf, or wolverine for harvest provided that the animals are not shot from a moving snowmachine.
(F) A federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take musk oxen on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must get a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but have no more than two harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(24)
(A) Unit 24A consists of the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from but not including the Harriet Creek and North Fork Koyukuk River drainages, to the South Fork of the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from Squaw Creek, the Jim River Drainage, the Fish Creek drainage upstream from and including the Bonanza Creek drainage, to the 1,410 ft. peak of the hydrologic divide with the northern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna River at N lat. 66°33.303′ W long. 151°03.637′ and following the unnamed northern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna Creek to the confluence of the southern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna River at N lat. 66°27.090′ W long. 151°23.841′, 4.2 miles SSW (194 degrees true) of Clawanmenka Lake and following the unnamed southern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna Creek to the hydrologic divide with the Kanuti River drainage at N lat. 66°19.789′ W long. 151°10.102′, 3.0 miles ENE (79 degrees true) from the 2,055 ft. peak on that divide, and the Kanuti River drainage upstream from the confluence of an unnamed creek at N lat. 66°13.050′ W long. 151°05.864′, 0.9 miles SSE (155 degrees true) of a 1,980 ft. peak on that divide, and following that unnamed creek to the Unit 24 boundary on the hydrologic divide to the Ray River drainage at N lat. 66°03.827′ W long. 150°49.988′ at the 2,920 ft. peak of that divide.
(B) Unit 24B consists of the Koyukuk River Drainage upstream from Dog Island to the Subunit 24A boundary.
(C) Unit 24C consists of the Hogatza River Drainage, the Koyukuk River Drainage upstream from Batza River on the north side of the Koyukuk River and upstream from and including the Indian River Drainage on the south side of the Koyukuk River to the Subunit 24B boundary.
(D) Unit 24D consists of the remainder of Unit 24.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles, or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats, in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, and Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife.
(B) You may not use aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part in the Kanuti Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 24 bounded by a line from the Bettles Field VOR to the east side of Fish Creek Lake, to Old Dummy Lake, to the south end of Lake Todatonten (including all waters of these lakes), to the northernmost headwaters of Siruk Creek, to the highest peak of Double Point Mountain, then back to the Bettles Field VOR; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or moose part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the controlled use area or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area.
(C) You may not use aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part in the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, which consists of those portions of Units 21 and 24 bounded by a line from the north bank of the Yukon River at Koyukuk at 64°52.58′ N lat., 157°43.10′ W long., then northerly to the confluences of the Honhosa and Kateel Rivers at 65°28.42′ N lat., 157°44.89′ W long., then northeasterly to the confluences of Billy Hawk Creek and the Huslia River (65°57 N lat., 156°41 W long.) at 65°56.66′ N lat., 156°40.81′ W long., then easterly to the confluence of the forks of the Dakli River at 66°02.56′ N lat., 156°12.71′ W long., then easterly to the confluence of McLanes Creek and the Hogatza River at 66°00.31′ N lat., 155°18.57′ W long., then southwesterly to the crest of Hochandochtla Mountain at 65°31.87′ N lat., 154°52.18′ W long., then southwest to the mouth of Cottonwood Creek at 65°13.00′ N lat., 156° 06.43′ W long., then southwest to Bishop Rock (Yistletaw) at 64° 49.35′ N. lat., 157°21.73′ W long., then westerly along the north bank of the Yukon River (including Koyukuk Island) to the point of beginning. However, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or moose part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the controlled use area or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area. All hunters on the Koyukuk River passing the ADF&G-operated check station at Ella's Cabin (15 miles upstream from the Yukon on the Koyukuk River) are required to stop and report to ADF&G personnel at the check station.
(iii) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. You may not use aircraft in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears. However, this prohibition does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30; and in the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, you may also use bait to hunt black bear Sep. 1-25.
(B) Arctic fox, incidentally taken with a trap or snare intended for red fox, may be used for subsistence purposes.
(C) If you are a resident of Units 24A, 24B, or 24C, during the dates of Oct. 15-Apr. 30, you may use an artificial light when taking a black bear, including a sow accompanied by cub(s), at a den site within the portions of Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve that are within Units 24A, 24B, or 24C.
(25)
(A) Unit 25A consists of the Hodzana River drainage upstream from the Narrows, the Chandalar River drainage upstream from and including the East Fork drainage, the Christian River drainage upstream from Christian, the Sheenjek River drainage upstream from and including the Thluichohnjik Creek, the Coleen River drainage, and the Old Crow River drainage.
(B) Unit 25B consists of the Little Black River drainage upstream from but not including the Big Creek drainage, the Black River drainage upstream from and including the Salmon Fork drainage, the Porcupine River drainage upstream from the confluence of the Coleen and Porcupine Rivers, and drainages into the north bank of the Yukon River upstream from Circle, including the islands in the Yukon River.
(C) Unit 25C consists of drainages into the south bank of the Yukon River upstream from Circle to the Subunit 20E boundary, the Birch Creek drainage upstream from the Steese Highway bridge (milepost 147), the Preacher Creek drainage upstream from and including the Rock Creek drainage, and the Beaver Creek drainage upstream from and including the Moose Creek drainage.
(D) Unit 25D consists of the remainder of Unit 25.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, and Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife.
(B) The Arctic Village Sheep Management Area consists of that portion of Unit 25A north and west of Arctic Village, which is bounded on the east by the East Fork Chandalar River beginning at the confluence of Red Sheep Creek and proceeding southwesterly downstream past Arctic Village to the confluence with Crow Nest Creek, continuing up Crow Nest Creek, through Portage Lake, to its confluence with the Junjik River; then down the Junjik River past Timber Lake and a larger tributary, to a major, unnamed tributary, northwesterly, for approximately 6 miles where the stream forks into two roughly equal drainages; the boundary follows the easternmost fork, proceeding almost due north to the headwaters and intersects the Continental Divide; the boundary then follows the Continental Divide easterly, through Carter Pass, then easterly and northeasterly approximately 62 miles along the divide to the headwaters of the most northerly tributary of Red Sheep Creek then follows southerly along the divide designating the eastern extreme of the Red Sheep Creek drainage then to the confluence of Red Sheep Creek and the East Fork Chandalar River.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30 and between August 1 and September 25; in Unit 25D you may use bait to hunt brown bear between April 15 and June 30 and between August 1 and September 25; you may use bait to hunt wolves on FWS and BLM lands.
(B) You may take caribou and moose from a boat moving under power in Unit 25.
(C) The taking of bull moose outside the seasons provided in this part for food in memorial potlatches and traditional cultural events is authorized in Unit 25D west provided that:
(
(
(
(
(26)
(A) Unit 26A consists of that portion of Unit 26 lying west of the Itkillik River drainage and west of the east bank of the Colville River between the mouth of the Itkillik River and the Arctic Ocean.
(B) Unit 26B consists of that portion of Unit 26 east of Unit 26A, west of the west bank of the Canning River and west of the west bank of the Marsh Fork of the Canning River.
(C) Unit 26C consists of the remainder of Unit 26.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use aircraft in any manner for moose hunting, including transportation of moose hunters or parts of moose during the periods July. 1-Sep. 14 and Jan. 1-Mar. 31 in Unit 26A; however, this does not apply to transportation of moose hunters, their gear, or moose parts by aircraft between publicly owned airports.
(B) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats, in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife.
(iii) You may not use aircraft in any manner for brown bear hunting, including transportation of hunters, bears or parts of bears. However, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may take caribou from a boat moving under power in Unit 26.
(B) In addition to other restrictions on method of take found in this section, you may also take swimming caribou with a firearm using rimfire cartridges.
(C) In Kaktovik, a federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take sheep or musk ox on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but may have no more than two harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(D) For the DeLong Mountain sheep hunts, a federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take sheep on his or her behalf. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for only one recipient in the course of a season and may have both his and the recipient's harvest limits in his/her possession at the same time.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; availability of a draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
This proposed rule would establish the 2025-26 harvest specifications for groundfish caught in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This proposed rule would also revise management measures intended to keep the total annual catch of each groundfish stock or stock complex within the annual catch limits. These proposed measures are intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available. This proposed rule would also make minor corrections (
Comments must be received no later than September 30, 2024.
Submit your comments on the proposed rule, draft EA, and EFP applications, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2024-0065, by the following method:
•
Please submit written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule and subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) by email to
This rulemaking is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
Lynn Massey, Fishery Management Specialist, at 562-900-2060 or
The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery in the U.S. EEZ seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California is managed under the PCGFMP. The Council developed the PCGFMP pursuant to the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1801
Chapter 5 of the PCGFMP requires the Council to assess the biological, social, and economic conditions of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery and use this information to develop harvest specifications and management measures at least biennially. This proposed rule is based on the Council's final recommendations for harvest specifications and management measures for the 2025-26 biennium made at its April and June 2024 meetings.
The Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary and appropriate to implement these actions in a July 29, 2024, letter from Council Executive Director, Merrick Burden, to Regional Administrator Jennifer Quan. Under the MSA, NMFS is required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. We are seeking comment on the proposed regulations in this action and whether they are consistent with the PCGFMP, the MSA and its National Standards, and other applicable law.
NMFS published a Notice of Availability (NOA) to announce the proposed amendment 33 to the PCGFMP (referred to interchangeably as “the amendment”) on August 2, 2024 (89 FR 63153). The NOA requests public review and comment on proposed changes to the Council fishery management plan document (89 FR 63153; August 2, 2024). Public comments are being solicited on the amendment through October 1, 2024,
In 2023, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted full stock assessments for black rockfish (all areas), copper rockfish (California areas), petrale sole, and canary rockfish. The NWFSC conducted length-based data moderate assessments for shortspine thornyhead and rex sole. Additionally, the NWFSC conducted catch-only assessment updates for widow rockfish and yelloweye rockfish, a limited update assessment for sablefish, and catch-only projections for chilipepper rockfish and yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ north latitude (N lat.). The NWFSC did not update assessments for the remaining stocks, so harvest specifications for these stocks are based on assessments from previous years. The full stock assessments used to set catch limits for this biennium are available on the Council's website at
The Council's stock assessment review panel (STAR panel) reviewed the stock assessments, including assessments on stocks for which some biological indicators are available, as described below, for technical merit, and to determine that each stock assessment document was sufficiently complete. Finally, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the stock assessments and STAR panel reports and made its recommendations to the Council (Agenda Item G.2, September 2023 Council Meeting; Agenda Item E.2, November 2023 Council Meeting).
The Council considered the new stock assessments, stock assessment updates, catch-only updates, public comment, recommendations from the SSC, and advice from its advisory bodies over the course of six Council meetings during development of its recommendations for the 2025-26 harvest specifications and management measures. At each Council meeting between June 2023 and June 2024, the Council made a series of decisions and recommendations that were, in some cases, refined after further analysis and discussion. Agenda Item H.7, Attachment 1, June 2023 describes the Council's meeting schedule for developing the 2025-26 biennial harvest specifications. Additionally, detailed information, including the supporting documentation the Council considered at each meeting, is available at the Council's website at
The 2025-26 biennial management cycle is the fifth cycle following PCGFMP amendment 24 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015), which established default harvest control rules and was analyzed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Final Environmental Impact Statement for Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter, and amendment 24 to the PCGFMP, published January 2015). The EIS described the ongoing implementation of the PCGFMP and the default harvest control rules. Under amendment 24, the default harvest control rules used to determine the previous biennium's harvest specifications (
Information regarding the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs proposed for groundfish stocks and stock complexes in 2025-26 is presented below, followed by a discussion of the proposed management measures for commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries.
This proposed rule would set 2025-26 harvest specifications and management measures for the 90+ groundfish stocks or management units which currently have ACLs or ACL contributions to stock complexes managed under the PCGFMP, except for Pacific whiting. Pacific whiting harvest specifications are established annually through a separate bilateral process with Canada.
The proposed OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic data, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. The PCGFMP specifies a series of three stock categories for the purpose of setting maximum sustainable yield (MSY),
The OFL serves as the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. Overfishing occurs when a stock's harvest rate, denoted as F
For 2025-26, the Council maintained its policy of using a default harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve MSY (F
The ABC is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended P star (P*)-sigma (σ) approach determines the amount by which the OFL is reduced to account for this uncertainty. Under this approach, the SSC recommends a σ value. The σ value is generally based on the scientific uncertainty in the biomass estimates generated from stock assessments and is usually related to the stock category. After the SSC determines the appropriate σ value, the Council chooses a P* based on its chosen level of risk aversion to address the consequences of the stock being elsewhere within the uncertainty represented by σ. A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional reduction beyond the σ value reduction. The PCGFMP specifies that the upper limit of P* will be 0.45, thus always ensuring at least some additional reduction beyond the σ value reduction. The P*- σ approach is discussed in detail in the proposed and final rules for the 2011-12 biennial harvest specifications and management measures (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010; 76 FR 27508, May 11, 2011) and the 2013-14 biennial harvest specifications and management measures (77 FR 67974, November 12, 2012; 78 FR 580, January 3, 2013).
The SSC quantified major sources of scientific uncertainty in the estimates of OFLs and generally recommended a σ value of 0.5 for Category 1 stocks, a σ value of 1.0 for Category 2 stocks, and a σ value of 2.0 for Category 3 stocks. For Category 2 and 3 stocks, there is greater scientific uncertainty in the OFL estimate because the assessments for these stocks are informed by less data than the assessments for Category 1 stocks. Therefore, the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that recommended for stocks with data-rich stock assessments. Assuming the same P* is applied, a larger σ value results in a larger reduction from the OFL. For 2025-26, the ABC recommendations are consistent with the general policy of using the SSC-recommended σ values for each stock category.
For 2025-26, the Council maintained the P* policies it established for the previous biennium for most stocks. The Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for all individually managed Category 1 stocks, except yelloweye rockfish. Combining the Category 1 σ value of 0.5 with the P* value of 0.45 results in a reduction of 6.1 percent from the OFL when deriving the ABC. For Category 2 stocks, the Council's general policy was to apply a P* of 0.40, with a few exceptions. The Council recommended applying a P* of 0.45 for big skate, English sole, lingcod south of 40°10′ N lat., lingcod north of 40°10′ N lat., longnose skate, Pacific ocean perch, shortspine thornyhead, blue rockfish in the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex, and all Category 2 stocks in the Nearshore rockfish complexes, Shelf rockfish complexes, and Slope rockfish complexes. When combined with the σ values of 1.0 for Category 2, a P* value of 0.45 corresponds to an 11.8 percent reduction from the OFL and a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to a 22.4 percent reduction. For Category 3 stocks, the Council's general policy was to apply a P* value of 0.45, except the Council recommended a P* value of 0.40 for cowcod between 40°10′ N lat. and 34°27′ N lat., Pacific cod, starry flounder, and all stocks in the Other Flatfish complex except rex sole, which was upgraded to a Category 2 stock with a P* of 0.45. When combined with the σ values of 2.0 for Category 3, a P* value of 0.45 corresponds to 22.2 percent reduction from the OFL and a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to a 39.8 percent reduction. See tables 8 and 9 of Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2 from the June 2024 Council meeting (hereafter interchangeably referred to as the Council Analytical Document) for the full description of σ and P* values by stock (see tables 1a and 2a to Part 660, Subpart C in the proposed regulatory text of this proposed rule for the proposed 2025-26 ABCs).
The Council recommends ACLs for each groundfish stock or management unit in the PCGFMP. To determine the ACL for each stock, the Council will determine the best estimate of current stock abundance and its relation to the precautionary and overfished/rebuilding thresholds. Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level that produces MSY, or B
Under PCGFMP amendment 24, the Council set up default harvest control rules, which established default policies that would be applied to the best available scientific information to set ACLs each biennial cycle, unless the Council has reasons to diverge from that harvest control rule. A complete description of the default harvest control rules for setting ACLs is described in the proposed and final rule for the 2015-16 harvest specifications and management measures (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015) and PCGFMP amendment 24 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015).
The PCGFMP defines the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with a B
Under the PCGFMP, harvest control rules are typically applied at the component species level for stock complexes to calculate ACLs. Resulting contribution values of each component species, or ACL contributions, are summed to equal the stock complex ACLs. For example, the ACL contribution of black rockfish off of Oregon contributes to the overall ACL for the Oregon black/deacon/blue rockfish stock complex. Under the PCGFMP, the Council may recommend setting the ACL at a different level than what the default harvest control rules specify as long as the ACL does not exceed the ABC and complies with the requirements of the MSA (see the Analysis for information on the MSA). For most of the stocks and stock complexes managed with harvest specifications for 2025-26, the Council chose to maintain the default harvest control rules from the previous biennial cycle. Table 1 presents a summary of the proposed changes to default harvest control rules for certain stocks for 2025-26. Each of these changes is discussed further below.
Rex sole is a Category 2 stock, managed as part of the Other Flatfish complex, with a default harvest control rule of ACL=ABC (P* 0.40). Rex sole is primarily caught in the bottom trawl fishery. In 2023, the NWFSC conducted a length-based data-moderate assessment (Agenda Item G.2 Attachment 3, September 2023), which estimates the stock is at 76.1 percent of unfished spawning output in 2023. This value is above the 25 percent management target level, indicating the stock is healthy. Therefore, the Council considered an alternative harvest control rule of ACL=ABC (P* 0.45). The application of a P* 0.45 means that a smaller fraction is used to reduce the OFL and to derive an ABC (beyond the reduction from σ), the result of which would yield higher ACLs in 2025-26 than under the default P* 0.40. As presented in the stock assessment and explained in the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2 June 2024), the stock is not expected to fall below the 25 percent management target level during the 10-year catch projection period under either harvest control rule, even with the projected attainment of the full ACL, which is unlikely to occur based on recent mortality trends. ACL attainment from 2020-2022 was approximately 9 percent of the potential 2025 ACL under P* 0.45. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, an alternative harvest control rule of ACL=ABC (P* 0.45). This will provide the trawl industry the most flexibility in light of other expected constraints in 2025-26.
Shortspine thornyhead is a Category 2 stock with a default harvest control rule that includes the application of P* 0.40 to the coastwide ABC, which is then split into two area-based ACLs north and south of 34° 27′ N lat. The ACLs are set according to the 5-year rolling average biomass estimated from the NWFSC's West Coast Groundfish Bottom Trawl (WCGBT), which for the 2025-26 biennium would yield a north and south split of 70.6 percent and 29.4 percent, respectively. In 2023, the NWFSC conducted a length-based data-moderate assessment (Agenda Item G.2 Attachment 4, September 2023), which indicates the stock is at 39.4 percent of unfished spawning output in 2023. This value is slightly below the 40 percent target management level, which indicates the stock is in the precautionary zone; thus, the 40-10 reduction from the ABC to derive the ACL automatically applies when setting ACLs for 2025-26 as a precautionary management approach. Due to the decrease in biomass, the Council anticipates that shortspine thornyhead will become a constraining species even under the highest P* for both the trawl and non-trawl sectors, as catch projections for 2023 and 2024 are
Dover sole is a Category 1 stock with a default harvest control rule of ACL = 50,000 metric tons (mt). However, in 2025-26, setting the ACL at 50,000 mt would violate the MSA, as the ACL would exceed the ABC. Therefore, the Council considered an alternative harvest control rule of P* 0.45 with the ACL set equal to the ABC. As explained in the Analysis and the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2 June 2024), actual removals are likely to remain well below the ABC/ACL under this alternative, making the risk of overfishing low. Therefore, NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, an alternative harvest control rule (
California quillback rockfish is a Category 2 stock with a default harvest control rule of ACL contribution < ABC (SPR 0.55; P* 0.45). Quillback rockfish is primarily caught by the non-trawl sectors, with approximately 75 percent caught by the recreational sector and approximately 25 percent caught by the commercial sector. Additionally, the majority of fishing mortality (~85 percent) occurs in State waters. In the 2023-24 biennium, California quillback rockfish was managed as part of the Nearshore rockfish complex both north and south of 40°10′ N lat. California quillback rockfish has since been categorized as its own stock under amendment 31 to the PCGFMP (88 FR 78677, November 16, 2023). The NWFSC conducted a data-moderate assessment in 2021 (Agenda Item E.2, Attachment 4, November 2021), which indicated depletion of the stock off California. The assessment was determined to be the best scientific information available in December 2021. In response to this assessment, and several subsequent reviews (Agenda Item C.6.a Supplemental SSC Report 1, September 2021; Agenda Item E.2.a Supplemental SSC Report 1, November 2021), NMFS declared the stock overfished in December 2023 and notified the Council of the requirement to develop a rebuilding plan. California quillback rockfish are caught with many other species of groundfish; therefore, the Council developed the rebuilding plan as part of the 2025-26 biennial specifications and management measures in order to account for restrictions needed for other groundfish targets in order to rebuild the stock. The Council considered a range of alternative harvest control rules during the development of the rebuilding plan that is proposed as a new management measure in this action, and which is described in detail under section III, P. of this preamble. Per the MSA, overfished species must have harvest specifications set to prevent overfishing (50 CFR 600.310(f)(3)(ii) and 50 CFR 600.310(f)(4)(i)), and species managed within a complex are managed to the complex OFL, which is additive across all species in the complex, rather than being managed to a species- or stock-specific harvest specification. Therefore, for the 2025-26 biennium, the Council recommended removing California quillback rockfish from the Nearshore rockfish complexes north and south of 40°10′ N lat., so that catch can be managed under stock-specific harvest specifications. NMFS is also proposing in alignment with the Council's recommendation, an alternative harvest control rule of the ABC Rule to set the 2025-26 ACLs for California quillback rockfish. The ABC Rule sets the ACL equal to the ABC with a management risk tolerance of P* 0.45 and the time-varying scientific uncertainty (σ = 1.0) reduction applied to the OFL. This harvest strategy is anticipated to rebuild the stock as fast as possible while taking into account the biology of the stock and the needs of fishing communities.
When NMFS declares a stock overfished, the Council must develop and manage the stock in accordance with a rebuilding plan. For overfished stocks in the PCGFMP, this means that the harvest control rule for overfished stocks sets the ACL based on the rebuilding plan. The proposed rules for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010) and 2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 14, 2012) harvest specifications and management measures contain extensive discussions on the management approach used for overfished stocks, which are not repeated here. In addition, the SAFE document posted on the Council's website at
Table 2 compares the ACLs for major stocks and stock complexes for 2023 and 2025-26 with harvest specifications set under their default harvest control rules. Under this proposed rule, 8 of the 39 stocks/complexes shown in table 2 would have higher ACLs in 2025 than in 2023, and 27 stocks/complexes would have ACLs that would decrease in 2025 from those in 2023. Three
This section describes proposed management measures used to further allocate the ACLs to the various components of the fishery (
Before making allocations to the primary commercial and recreational components of groundfish fisheries, the Council recommends “off-the-top deductions,” or deductions from the
The Quileute Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Makah Indian Tribe, and Hoh Indian Tribe (collectively, “the Pacific Coast Tribes”) implement management measures for Tribal fisheries both independently as sovereign governments and cooperatively with the management measures in the Federal regulations. The Pacific Coast Tribes work through the Council process to maintain groundfish set-asides, harvest guidelines, and allocations pursuant to treaty fishing rights and as co-managers of the resource. The Pacific Coast Tribes may adjust their Tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the Tribal set-asides and allocations and within the estimated impacts to overfished stocks. Table 3 provides the proposed Tribal harvest set-asides and allocations proposed for the 2025-26 biennium for groundfish species other than Pacific whiting, which is allocated through a separate annual specifications process with Canada. These targets are consistent with the 2024 targets, with the exception of petrale sole (decreased to 290 mt), sablefish north of 36° N lat. (increased to 2,869 mt in 2025 and 2,724 mt in 2026) and yelloweye rockfish (increased to 8 mt). Typically, a portion of these values are included as footnotes to tables 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b of subpart C and the other portion of these values are specified at 50 CFR 660.50. NMFS would remove the footnotes from tables 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b of subpart C, and publish the full list of Tribal set asides at 50 CFR 660.50 as part of regulatory cleanup efforts. As noted above, these values will also be published in the SAFE.
The Pacific Coast Tribes proposed trip limit management in Tribal fisheries for 2025-26 for several stocks, including several rockfish stocks and stock complexes. This rulemaking proposes the trip limits for Tribal fisheries. as provided to the Council at its April 2024 meeting in Supplemental Tribal Reports 1 and 2, Agenda Item F.5. For rockfish stocks. Tribal regulations will continue to require full retention of all overfished rockfish stocks and marketable non-overfished rockfish stocks. The Pacific Coast Tribes will continue to develop management measures, including depth, area, and time restrictions, in the directed Tribal Pacific halibut fishery in order to minimize incidental catch of yelloweye rockfish.
NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, the below amounts in table 4 to accommodate mortality from research activities for the 2025-26 biennium. Research activities include the NWFSC's WCGBT survey, the NWFSC's Southern California Hook-and-Line survey, and the International Pacific
NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, the below amounts in table 5 to accommodate mortality of groundfish taken incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries (
Issuing EFPs is authorized by regulations implementing the MSA at 50 CFR 600.745, which state that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. The Council routinely considers EFP applications concurrently with the biennial harvest specifications and management process because expected catch under most EFP projects is accounted for via off-the-top deductions from ACLs. However, both EFP applications recommended by the Council for 2025-26 do not request off-the-top deductions from ACLs and plan to account for their catch via other methods. A detailed description of these EFP proposals is provided in section III, I of this preamble.
The allocation framework for sablefish north of 36° N lat. was set up under amendment 6 to PCGFMP (57 FR 54001; Nov 16 1992). This framework deducts a set-aside from the ACL to account for mortality in the recreational fisheries. The set-aside amount is usually based on the maximum historical value of sablefish caught in recreational fisheries. The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, increasing the recreational set-aside from 6 mt in the 2023-24 biennium to 30 mt in the 2025-26 biennium. As described in the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment, June 2, 2024), historical recreational mortality of sablefish north of 36° N lat. has not exceeded 3.98 mt from 2005-22. However, the California and Oregon recreational catch estimates
As defined at 50 CFR 660.11, an annual catch target (ACT) is a management target set below the ACL that may be used as an accountability measure in cases where there is uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring to ensure against exceeding an ACL. Since the ACT is a target and not a limit, it can be used in lieu of HGs or set strategically to accomplish other management objectives. Sector-specific ACTs can also be specified to accomplish management objectives. For the 2025-26 biennium, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, ACTs for yelloweye rockfish in the non-trawl sectors (both commercial and recreational), copper rockfish in the recreational sector south of 34° 27′ N lat., and shortspine thornyhead in the commercial non-trawl sector north of 34° 27′ N lat. Further, the Council recommended removing the ACT from the 2023-24 biennium for California quillback rockfish. These ACTs can be found in the footnotes to tables 1a and 2a to part 660, subpart C in the regulatory text of this proposed rule.
The Council considered removing the non-trawl ACT for yelloweye rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish is a prohibited species in all non-trawl groundfish fisheries, where more than 95 percent of the mortality occurs. It is currently managed with a non-trawl ACT set at 78.4 percent of the non-trawl allocation, and sector-specific ACTs under the non-trawl allocation are also set at 78.4 percent of their respective sector-specific HGs (table 6 below). The majority of commercial non-trawl mortality is discarded and, therefore, commercial non-trawl inseason estimates are largely year-end projections that do not have data-informed estimates of discards until September of the following year, when the Groundfish Expanded Mortality Multiyear (GEMM) report is available. Additionally, pre-season management measures of any non-trawl sector are not expected to be different with or without the ACT. However, ultimately, the Council recommended maintaining ACTs as a precaution. Since yelloweye rockfish catch has been restricted for many years, it is difficult to project encounter rates. This precautionary approach to higher catch limits would allow more access to target fisheries for the non-trawl sector, while also managing for the uncertainty and volatility in catch of this rebuilding stock by this sector.
NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, to remove the statewide all-sector copper rockfish ACT and to establish a recreational copper rockfish ACT in the area south of 34°27′ N lat. This recommendation was made in response to the 2023 copper rockfish off California stock assessment, which estimated depletion of copper rockfish at 46 and 16 percent north and south of 34°27′ N lat., respectively (Agenda Item G.2 Attachment 1, September 2023 and Agenda Item G.2 Attachment 2, September 2023). While allowable harvest of copper rockfish off California is shared by the fixed gear commercial and recreational sectors, recreational mortality has accounted for the majority of impacts in recent years. This is particularly evident in the area south of 34°27′ N lat. Over the last 6 years, the recreational fishery, on average, has been responsible for approximately 90 percent of total mortality in the area south of 34°27′ N lat. As noted in Agenda Item E.7.a, Supplemental GMT Report 3, November 2023, establishing a within non-trawl recreational ACT for copper rockfish south of 34°27′ N lat. may provide a mechanism for management specifically addressing the proportion of the copper rockfish stock that may be more susceptible to localized depletion, in a similar manner as has been done previously for stocks of concern (
NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, an ACT for shortspine thornyhead in the non-trawl commercial sector north of 34°27′ N lat. This ACT is related to the Council's recommendation to revise the allocation framework for shortspine thornyhead, which is described in detail under section III, L of this preamble. The proposed ACTs for shortspine thornyhead are 67 mt and 55 mt for 2025 and 2026, respectively.
NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, to remove the ACT from the 2023-24 biennium for quillback rockfish off California. The ACT was originally designed as a mechanism to monitor quillback rockfish mortality relative to its component mortality of the Nearshore Rockfish complex ACL. Now that the Council has recommended to remove California quillback rockfish from the Nearshore complex, mortality will be monitored against its species-specific ACLs. Due to anticipated low harvest limits, there is little value in setting an ACT lower than the ACL because the small difference in an ACL to ACT will not give the Council a timely warning to reduce mortality to avoid exceeding the ACL.
The Council routinely recommends two-year trawl and non-trawl allocations during the biennial specifications process for stocks without formal allocations (as defined in section
Shortspine thornyhead has a formal allocation structure described in amendment 21 to the PCGFMP. The stock has a coastwide OFL and ABC, with two area-specific ACLs and fishery HGs set for north and south of 34°27′ N lat. The area-specific ACLs have been apportioned using the data (2003-2012) from the NWFSC WCGBT survey at the time of the previous assessment conducted in 2013. There are different allocation frameworks for each area. For north of 34°27′ N lat., 95 percent of the HG has gone to the trawl sector, and 5 percent of the HG to the non-trawl sector. For south of 34°27′ N lat., a fixed tonnage of 50 mt has gone to the trawl sector, and the remainder of the HG to the non-trawl sector. For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, a change to this allocation structure to alleviate anticipated constraints for both the trawl and non-trawl sector north of 34°27′ N lat. The details of this new management measure are described in the Analysis and in section III, L of this preamble. The proposed allocation framework would change shortspine thornyhead to a 2-year allocation species, and set a coastwide ACL, coastwide off-the-top deductions, and a coastwide HG. In 2025, the trawl/non-trawl allocation would be 64 and 36 percent of the HG, respectively, and in 2026 the trawl/non-trawl allocation would be 71 and 29 percent of the HG, respectively. These values are reflected in tables 6 and 7 above.
The typical allocation framework for widow rockfish allots a fixed 400 mt to the non-trawl sector and the remainder of the HG to the trawl sector. For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, to reduce the non-trawl allocation to a fixed 300 mt, thus increasing the remainder of the HG allocated to the trawl sector by 100 mt. As described in the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2 June 2024), the 2025-26 trawl allocations are expected to be lower than that sector's mortality in recent years. The resulting allocations proposed for 2025 and 2026 in tables 6 and 7, respectively, are expected to meet the needs of each sector.
For each biennium, the Council can consider HG sharing agreements for other stocks or stock complexes separate from the standard list of biennial allocations discussed in section III, C of this preamble. These sharing agreements can be arrangements on how the HG is split among separate states, fishery sectors, or both. For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is proposing sharing agreements for: bocaccio south of 40°10′ N lat., canary rockfish, cowcod, Nearshore rockfish complex north of 40°10′ N lat., sablefish south of 36° N lat., slope rockfish south of 40°10′ N lat., and blackgill rockfish. All proposed sharing agreements are maintained from the 2023-24 biennium, with the exception of sablefish south of 36° N lat. The Council is recommending a new sharing agreement for sablefish south of 36° N lat. (described below) based on a new recreational set-aside. See the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2, June 2024) for
The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, a new recreational set-aside of 10 mt for sablefish south of 36° N lat., within the non-trawl HG sharing agreement, because the recreational fishery in this area has expressed interest in targeting sablefish. As described in the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2, June 2024), this amount would allow for better monitoring of mortality of this stock and is not expected to constrain the commercial non-trawl sector, which targets sablefish.
Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large area closures intended to reduce the catch of a rockfish stock or stock complex by restricting fishing activity at specific depths. The boundaries for RCAs are defined by straight lines connecting a series of latitude and longitude coordinates that approximate depth contours. These sets of coordinates, or lines, are not gear or fishery specific, but can be used in combination to define an area. NMFS then implements fishing restrictions for a specific gear and/or fishery within each defined area.
For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, coordinate modifications to six waypoints (#95 through 100) on the 50 fathom (fm) line seaward of California between Pt. Arena and Bodega Bay. These modifications would better align existing RCA coordinates with the 50-fm chart-based depth contour.
The limited entry trawl fishery is made up of the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) program (for whiting and non-whiting) and the at-sea whiting sectors (Mothership (MS) and catcher-processor (C/P)). For some stocks and stock complexes with a trawl allocation, an amount is first set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector with the remainder of the trawl allocation going to the shorebased IFQ sector. Set-asides are not managed by NMFS or the Council except in the case of a risk to the ACL.
For several species, the trawl allocation is reduced by an amount set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector. This amount is designed to accommodate catch by the at-sea whiting sector when they are targeting Pacific whiting. NMFS is proposing, in alignment with the Council's recommendation, the set-asides in table 11 for the 2025-26 biennium.
For vessels fishing in the Shorebased IFQ Program, with either groundfish trawl gear or non-trawl gears, the following incidentally-caught stocks are managed with trip limits: Nearshore rockfish complex north and south, Washington black rockfish, Oregon black/blue/deacon rockfish complex, cabezon (46°16′ to 40°10′ N lat. and south of 40°10′ N lat.), Pacific spiny dogfish, longspine thornyhead south of 34°27′ N lat., big skate, California scorpionfish, longnose skate, Pacific whiting, and the Other Fish complex. For all these stocks, this rulemaking proposes maintaining the same IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the start of the 2025-26 biennium as those in place in 2024. Additionally, this rulemaking proposes maintaining the
Management measures for the LEFG and OA non-trawl fisheries tend to be similar because the majority of participants in both fisheries use hook-and-line gear. Management measures, including area restrictions (
The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, status quo trip limits for LEFG and OA fisheries in 2025, with the exception of the OA trip limit for lingcod north of 42° N lat., which is being decreased from 11,000 pounds (lb) (4,990 kilograms (kg)) per 2 months, to 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) per 2 months, to ensure the OA trip limit is lower than the LEFG trip limit. The Council also recommended modifying the temporal component (
The primary sablefish fishery tier program is a limited access privilege program set up under amendment 14 to PCGFMP (66 FR 41152; August 7, 2001). Participants hold limited entry permits with a pot gear and/or longline gear endorsement and a sablefish endorsement.
Under amendment 14, as set out in 50 CFR 660.231, the permit holder of a sablefish-endorsed permit receives a tier limit, which is an annual share of the sablefish catch allocation to this sector. NMFS sets three different tier limits through the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process and up to three permits may be stacked at one time on a vessel participating in the fishery. Stacked tier limits are combined to provide a cumulative catch limit for that vessel. After vessels have caught their full tier limits, they are allowed to move into other fisheries for sablefish, specifically the LEFG or OA trip limit fishery, or fisheries for other species. The proposed tier limits for 2025 are as follows: Tier 1 at 246,824 lb (111,957 kg), Tier 2 at 112,193 lb (50,890 kg), and Tier 3 at 64,110 lb (29,080 kg). The proposed tier limits for 2026 are as follows: Tier 1 at 234,312 lb (106,282 kg), Tier 2 at 106,506 lb (48,310 kg), and Tier 3 at 60,860 lb (27,606 kg).
This section describes the recreational fisheries management measures proposed for 2025-2026, which are intended to keep catch within the recreational harvest guidelines for each stock. Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, and the Council recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area closures, and size limits for stocks targeted in recreational fisheries. These measures are designed to limit catch of overfished stocks found in the waters adjacent to each state while allowing target fishing opportunities in their particular recreational fisheries. This proposed rule would set these measures for recreational fisheries occurring in the EEZ. Each state, respectively, typically sets measures for recreational fisheries in State waters. The following sections describe the recreational management measures proposed in each state.
The state of Washington manages its marine fisheries in four areas: (1) Marine Area 1, which extends from the Oregon/Washington border to Leadbetter Point; (2) Marine Area 2, which extends from Leadbetter Point to the mouth of the Queets Rivers; (3) Marine Area 3, which extends from the Queets River to Cape Alava; and (4) Marine Area 4, which extends from Cape Alava to the Sekiu River. This proposed rule would adopt the following season structure in table 12.
Consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes continuing with the same season structure, closed areas, and bag limits for 2025-26 as were in place in 2024, with the exception of some varying depth restrictions proposed in table 12 above to ensure harvest specifications are not exceeded. The Council also proposed a new sub-bag limit for canary rockfish of five fish (out of the seven rockfish bag limit). For more information on the proposed management measures for the Washington recreational fishery, see the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reports from the April and June 2024 Council meetings (Agenda Item F.5.a, Supp. WDFW Report 1, April 2024; Agenda Item F.6.a WDFW Report 1 June 2024).
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, that Oregon recreational fisheries in 2025-26 would operate under an all months all depths season structure to start the 2025 fishing year. The Council recommended maintaining the 2023-24 aggregate bag limits and size limits in Oregon recreational fisheries for 2025-26, but with the addition of a new bag limit for sablefish and a new sub-bag limit for canary rockfish within the longleader bag limit. The proposed bag limits are: a marine fish aggregate limit of 10 fish per day, where cabezon have a minimum size of 16 inches (in) (41 centimeter (cm)); 3 lingcod per day, with a minimum size of 22 in (56 cm); 25 flatfish per day, excluding Pacific halibut; a longleader gear limit of 12 fish per day with a sub-bag limit of 5 canary rockfish; and 10 sablefish per day.
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, a new sub-bag limit of five canary rockfish per angler within the longleader bag limit. This sub-bag limit would be used to mitigate the decrease in the coastwide ACL and recreational allocation for canary rockfish. The Council also recommended a new bag limit for sablefish. As explained in the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2, June 2024), sablefish encounters and catches have increased in all sectors (including the Oregon recreational fishery), as larger recruitment classes of sablefish have entered into the different fisheries. Sablefish are not a targeted species in the Oregon recreational fishery; however, they are encountered during offshore Pacific halibut fishing trips and/or offshore longleader trips. Recreational anglers off Oregon are allowed to retain sablefish during a
The Council manages recreational fisheries in waters seaward of California in five separate management areas. Season and area closures differ between California management areas to limit incidental catch of overfished stocks and stocks of concern while providing as much recreational fishing opportunity as possible. The Council's recommended California season structure for 2025 and 2026 is the same as the structure adopted by the Council for 2024 recreational fisheries in California (Agenda Item F.8.a CDFW Supplemental Report 2, March 2024; Agenda Item F.5.a Supplemental CDFW Report 1 April 2024).
In the Northern Management Area (42° N lat. to 40°10′ N lat.), the Mendocino Management Area (40°10′ N lat. to 38°57.5′ N lat.), the San Francisco Management Area (38°57.5′ N lat. to 37°11′ N lat.), and part of the Central Management Area (37°11′ N lat. to 36° N lat.), the fishery for California rockfish, cabezon, greenling complex (RCG complex), as defined at 50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(ii), and the fishery for lingcod would be closed January 1 to March 31, open seaward of 50 fm (91 m) from April 1 to April 31, closed in the EEZ from May 1 to September 30, open seaward of 50 fm (91 m) from October 1 to October 31, closed in the EEZ, and open seaward of 50 fm (91 m) from December 1 to December 31.
In the other portion of the Central Management Area (36° N lat. to 34°27′ N lat.) and the Southern Management Area (34°27′ N lat. to U.S./Mexico border), the RCG complex fishery and the lingcod fishery would be closed January 1 to March 31, open in all depths April 1 to June 30, open in the EEZ shoreward of 50 fm (91 m) from July 1 to September 30, and open seaward of 50 fm (91 m) from October 1 to December 31. Recreational groundfish fishing opportunities in state waters may differ and would be announced separately by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Table 13 shows the proposed season structure and depth limits by management area in 2025 and 2026 for the RCG complex fishery and lingcod fishery.
The use of the 50 fm line in the table above constitutes the Recreational RCA line for the start of the 2025-26 biennium, but the Council could recommend to use a different fm line via an inseason action. In other words, the line approximating the 50 fm depth contour would be the line used for the “offshore fishery,” where fishing can be open seaward of the single fm line, as opposed to across a range of depths between two fm lines, which is how RCA closures are typically structured. This management measure was implemented in the 2023-24 biennium (87 FR 77007; December 16, 2022) and used for the first time via the Council's September 2023 inseason action (88 FR 67656; October 2, 2023).
In 2023-24, Federal regulations required that recreational vessels be in continuous transit when motoring back to port during times where an offshore fishery was in place. However, these regulations inadvertently prevented recreational vessels from anchoring overnight shoreward of a Recreational RCA during unfavorable weather conditions or during multi-day trips, thus creating safety-at-sea concerns. Additionally, these regulations inadvertently prevented recreational vessels from fishing for non-groundfish species (
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, the continuation of all the same bag and sub-bag limits from 2024 for the RCG complex, lingcod, Other flatfish, petrale sole, starry flounder, and California scorpionfish. With the exception of the seasonal Recreational RCA boundaries described above in table 13, all other area closures would remain the same as 2024 for 2025-26 (
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, to remove size limit requirements for cabezon, greenlings, and California scorpionfish. NMFS is also proposing to remove the filet length requirement for California scorpion fish and modifying the filet requirements for cabezon, greenlings, California scorpionfish, and lingcod. Current regulations prohibit fileting cabezon and greenlings at sea (50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(D)) and specify minimum size requirements (50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(C)). California scorpion fish are allowed to be fileted at sea provided that filets are no smaller than 5 in (12.8 cm) and bear an intact 1 in (2.6 cm) square patch of skin (50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(v)(D)); there is also a minimum size requirement of 10 in (25 cm) (50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(v)(C)). Lingcod is also allowed to be fileted at sea provided that filets are no smaller than 14 in (36 cm) in length and that each filet bear an intact 1 in (2.6 cm) square patch of skin. The Council recommended to change these regulations to remove the size limits and instead allow fishermen to filet both cabezon and greenlings at sea. In addition, the Council recommended to remove the size limit for California scorpionfish, and modify the filet requirements for cabezon, greenlings, California scorpionfish and lingcod so that the skin is required to be left on the filet, which would improve the ability for enforcement officers to distinguish between filets of these four species, which closely resemble one another. Cabezon, greenling, and California scorpionfish are commonly captured along with rockfish on recreational trips. Size limit restrictions and filet regulations prevent commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) operators and recreational anglers from fileting all species aboard the vessel at sea since, regulations that require fish with a size limit, but no filet length requirement, must be landed whole (50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(D)). This process increases time and cost as anglers need to wait to filet certain species when they return to port. These changes are anticipated to reduce operational constraints for CPFVs. See the Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2, June 2024) for more information on these proposed changes.
Issuing EFPs is authorized by regulations implementing the MSA at 50 CFR 600.745, which state that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited.
At its June 2024 meeting, the Council recommended that NMFS approve two EFP applications for the 2025 fishing year and preliminarily approve the EFP applications for the 2026 fishing year. The Council considers EFP applications concurrently with the biennial harvest specifications and management process because expected catch under most EFP projects is included in the catch limits for groundfish stocks. All of the EFP applications for 2025-26 are renewals from previous biennia. A summary of each EFP application is provided below:
•
•
Neither of these EFP projects request set-asides as off-the-top deductions from the 2025-26 applicable ACLs. For the Trawl Gear EFP, landings and discards of IFQ species would be accounted for through the participating vessel's IFQ. For the CDFW EFP, all mortality is expected to occur in conjunction with routine recreational fishing activities and would be calculated as part of the normal recreational catch estimation process. NMFS would not require 100 percent observer coverage for vessels participating in the CDFW EFP project because recreational vessels do not meet the minimum size requirements under Federal regulations to carry an observer.
NMFS does not expect any impacts to the environment, essential fish habitat, or protected or prohibited species from these EFPs beyond those analyzed for the groundfish fishery as a whole in applicable biological opinions (available at
After publication of this document in the
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, a new permit program for the directed OA sector. The directed OA fishery is defined in 50 CFR 660.11 under “open access fishery” and includes those vessels targeting groundfish pursuant to the OA regulations under Part 660 subpart F. It does not include vessels that retain groundfish incidentally to non-groundfish target species (
The purpose of this new management measure is to better track and account for participation in the directed OA sector, thus enabling the Council and NMFS to better account for impacts to and from this sector. The directed OA sector has grown substantially since it was first established alongside the LE sectors in amendment 6 to the PCGFMP (57 FR 54001; Nov 16 1992). Although the Council can generally identify participants via landing receipts and declarations, the lack of an official registry of directed OA participants has created ongoing challenges with: (1) developing management measures for the directed OA fishery; (2) communicating new regulations to the directed OA sector (
The permit program would require vessels that intend to participate in the directed OA sector to register their information, pay an administrative fee, and obtain a permit on an annual basis. Permits would expire on the last day of the birth month of the permit holder. The number of permits would not be capped. Permits will be assigned to a vessel owner per vessel (
All permits issued by NMFS carry an administrative cost, per the requirements for user fees based on the provision of a service. These costs vary based on the administrative costs of receiving applications, reviewing applications and any association required documentation, and issuing permits as a factor of the number of expected applications. The amount of the fee would be determined in accordance with the NOAA Finance Handbook available at
NMFS may require that fishermen provide vessel monitoring system (VMS) information during the application process for a directed OA permit. The purpose of this requirement would be to ensure that all directed OA permittees are in compliance with VMS regulations. If NMFS chooses to require VMS information, notification will be provided in the final rule. NMFS welcomes public comment on this potential requirement. Additionally, NMFS may also restrict the ability to dual declare both a directed OA declaration code (codes 33 through 37 at § 660.13(d)(4)(iv)(A) and an IOA declaration code. The purpose of this restriction would be to better delineate directed OA fishermen from IOA fishermen. If NMFS chooses to move forward with this restriction, additional language would be added to § 660.13(d)(4)(iv) specifying the restriction in the final rule. NMFS also welcomes public comment on this potential restriction.
When the permit program is established, NMFS will do appropriate outreach to communicate instructions to the fleet. For more information on this new management measure see Council Analytical Document (Agenda Item F.6 Attachment 2, June 2024) and the NMFS report from the June 2024 Council meeting (Agenda Item F.6.a NMFS Report 1, June 2024).
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, modifications to the regulations pertaining to discard and retention requirements in the Electronic Monitoring (EM) program for non-IFQ species, to include sablefish and rex sole, and to exclude California halibut. An EFP project designed to test EM to determine its efficacy for monitoring the groundfish trawl fishery and the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery, in lieu of human observers, occurred from 2015-2023. During the past 8 years, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission has conducted video review analysis of EM. Improved catch handling from vessel crew, as well as the improved ability to reliably identify more species on camera from video reviewers over time has resulted in the allowable discards list to expand under the EFP. However, inadvertently, both sablefish and rex sole have been missing from the discard list specified in regulation, whereas the Vessel Monitoring Plan does list these stocks. Additionally, as currently written, the regulations are in conflict with regard to the rules for California halibut catch handling. The regulations require vessels to
The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, modifying the allocation framework for shortspine thornyhead. These modifications would include removing the management line at 34°27′ N lat. and combining the area-specific ACLs, off-the-top deductions, HGs, and trawl/non-trawl allocations that would have otherwise been assigned north and south of 34°27′ N lat.
Shortspine thornyhead's allocation structure was established via amendment 21 to the PCGFMP (see
As a result of the 2023 stock assessment (Agenda Item G.2 Attachment 4, September 2023), which indicates the stock will be in the precautionary zone, shortspine thornyhead ACLs in the 2025-26 biennium are expected to be constraining for both the trawl and non-trawl sectors in the area north of 34°27′ N lat. For the trawl sector in the north, there would be substantial IFQ reductions. For the non-trawl sector in the north, trip limits for the LEFG fishery would have to be so low that a targeted fishery is unlikely to be viable. Shortspine thornyhead has been chronically under-attained in the area south of 34°27′ N lat.; therefore, combining the trawl and non-trawl allocations into coastwide allocations would allow for more flexible use in issuing trawl quota and setting non-trawl trip limits. The stock occurs coastwide without known finer-scale population structure. The separate ACLs are a relic of the management system, rather than a tool to address any biological or ecological issue. To achieve the proposed combination, the Council and NMFS would change shortspine thornyhead to a 2-year allocation species (
Shortspine thornyhead was recently defined as a coastwide stock via amendment 31 (88 FR 78677; November 16, 2023). Therefore, the removal of the management line is consistent with the best scientific information available, which indicates there is no biological need for different management strategies north and south of 34°27′ N lat. However, recent data from the NWFSC WCGBT survey indicates that approximately 70 percent of the stock has resided north of 34°27′ N lat. and 30 percent has resided south in the past 5 years, and the separate ACLs had been apportioned accordingly. Since this new management measure would create a coastwide allocation, there will likely be more effort in the area north of 34°27′ N lat., than there otherwise would be if the management line were not removed and the area-specific ACLs and HGs remained. Consequently, the Council recommended the continuation of setting different trip limits for the LEFG and OA fisheries north and south of 34°27′ N lat. to maintain their ability to manage effort in each area. The
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, a new management measure that would require recreational vessels fishing in Federal waters seaward of Washington, Oregon, or California, to possess a functional descending device. A descending device is a tool used to return fish that suffer from barotrauma to depth of capture. Barotrauma is a condition caused by rapid decompression when a fish is reeled up from depth (high pressure) to the surface (low pressure), which can cause multiple physiological changes, notably an inflated swim bladder. When rockfish suffering from barotrauma are released at the surface, their ability to return to depth on their own is compromised due to the inability of the fish to vent the gas from the swim bladder. This can result in increased mortality, either due to surface depredation (
The requirement would be one functional descending device per vessel, regardless of the number of anglers onboard. Although each of the respective states have their own requirements, those requirements are only applicable in State waters. This management measure would apply to any vessel fishing for groundfish under recreational catch limits in Federal waters, thus creating continuity across state and Federal regulations. Anglers would be required to present the descending device at the request of an enforcement officer. For information on this management measure, see the Analysis.
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, modifications to the continuous transit regulations for California recreational vessels. These changes would allow recreational vessels to stop and/or anchor in Federal waters shoreward of a Recreational RCA line, provided that no hook-and-line gear is deployed. At their September 2023 meeting, the Council recommended that California recreational fishing vessels be required to fish seaward of the Recreational RCA line (
NMFS took temporary emergency action to modify the continuous transit regulations for the 2024 fishing year (89 FR 22352; April 1, 2024). The Council recommended the same modifications be made permanent through this action for the 2025-26 biennium and beyond. Similar to the emergency action (89 FR 22352; April 1, 2024), this new management measure is expected to prevent the cancellation of thousands of multi-day or groundfish/non-groundfish recreational fishing trips. For more information on this management measure, see the Analysis.
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, administrative changes to the regulations that would correct the scientific name of Pacific sand lance and the common name of Pacific spiny dogfish. The scientific name for Pacific sand lance at § 660.5(a) is incorrectly listed as
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, the implementation of a rebuilding plan for quillback rockfish off California. NMFS declared quillback rockfish off California overfished in December 2023 in response to a data-moderate assessment conducted by the NWFSC in 2021 (Agenda Item E.2, Attachment 4, November 2021). When NMFS declares a stock overfished, the Council must develop and manage the stock in accordance with a rebuilding plan (50 CFR 600.310(j)), which must include certain rebuilding parameters, including Tmin, Tmax, and Ttarget. Tmin means the amount of time the stock or stock complex is expected to take to rebuild to its MSY biomass level in the absence of any fishing mortality (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(A)). Tmax means the maximum time for rebuilding a stock or stock complex to its MSY biomass and can be 10 years or more depending on the value of Tmin (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B)). If Tmin for the stock or stock complex exceeds 10 years, then Tmax must be calculated as Tmin plus the length of time associated with one generation time for that stock or stock complex. “Generation time” is the average length of time between when an individual is born and the birth of its offspring. Ttarget means the specified time period for rebuilding a stock that is considered to be as short a time as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the overfished stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the U.S. participates, and interaction of the stock within the marine ecosystem (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(C) and 50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)). In March 2024, the Council adopted the California quillback rockfish rebuilding analysis
To meet rebuilding plan requirements, the Council considered a range of alternative harvest control rules during the development of this action (Agenda Item F.6 Supplemental Revised Attachment 3, June 2024). The four harvest control rules considered include: (1) Alternative 1−ACL SPR = 0.55 < ABC P* 0.45; (2) Alternative 2−the ABC rule, P* 0.45; (3) Alternative 3−CDFW alternative; and (4) Alternative 4−F = 0. The Council considered but removed Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 from further consideration at the April 2024 meeting. Alternative 1 would rebuild the stock by 2071 (Tmax), however, the Council rejected Alternative 1 as, when compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 1 delays rebuilding by two years and with a lower probability of rebuilding (69.4 percent) by Tmax. Alternative 3 was not selected for further consideration because it failed to meet technical and legal requirements, as it would result in a catch limit substantially higher than the SSC-recommended OFL. Alternative 4 (F = 0) represents a harvest strategy that achieves zero fishing mortality and rebuilds the stock in the minimum amount of time. This strategy has a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by 2045 and a 99.9 percent probability of rebuilding by 2071 (Tmax); however, to achieve F=0, all groundfish and non-groundfish fisheries that encounter California quillback rockfish would need to be closed, which would cause devastating short-term economic impacts to California fishing communities. Table 14 below shows what the resulting harvest specifications would be under each rebuilding strategy for comparison.
NMFS is proposing, consistent with the Council's recommendation, the ABC control rule as the rebuilding plan harvest strategy (Alternative 2). This rebuilding strategy sets the ABC by applying the maximum management risk tolerance (P* 0.45) and the standard scientific uncertainty (time-varying σ) reduction to the OFL. As shown in the Analysis, this rebuilding strategy has a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by 2060 (Ttarget) and 73.6 percent probability of rebuilding by 2071. Accordingly, this alternative will rebuild the stock within the MSA-mandated timeframe, while still providing some fishing opportunity to meet the needs of the fishing communities.
The Analysis explains that if the rebuilding plan were set to rebuild the stock as fast as possible (
As noted above, the majority of quillback rockfish fishing mortality occurs in state waters. The proposed rebuilding plan only applies in the EEZ. NMFS expects to work cooperatively with the CDFW on any measures the state deems fit to apply in state waters to support rebuilding throughout the stock's range. Mortality of California quillback rockfish in state waters will be deducted from the Federal ACL.
This rulemaking proposes minor corrections to the regulations at 50 CFR part 660. These minor corrections are necessary to reduce confusion and inconsistencies in the regulatory text, alleviate enforcement challenges, and ensure the regulations accurately implement the Council's intent.
At § 660.11, NMFS proposes to remove the definition for “grandfathered or first generation” because it is a term that is no longer used in Federal regulations.
At § 660.13, NMFS proposes to make various changes to the non-trawl logbook regulations. First, at § 660.13(a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), NMFS proposes amending the regulations to clarify that information on setting and retrieving gear must be recorded for every set. The regulations as written: “Logbook entries for setting gear, including vessel information, gear specifications, set date/time/location, must be completed within 2 hours of setting gear” have led to enforcement challenges because some fishermen have interpreted the regulations to mean that they are only required to record information once all of their gear is deployed (
At § 660.55(i)(2), NMFS proposes to clarify that at-sea set-asides are described in the biennial specifications process and not “in Tables 1D and 2D of this subpart” as currently stated.
At § 660.60(c)(1)(i), NMFS proposes to remove the cross reference to “(c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section” as those references no longer exist.
At § 660.60(g) and § 660.65, NMFS proposes to clarify language about how catch of groundfish species in state waters is accounted for under Federal harvest specifications.
At § 660.140(g), NMFS proposes to add a sentence clarifying that IFQ species with discard mortality rates (DMRs) should be appropriately accounted for when deducting discard amounts from quota pounds (QP) in vessel accounts. As currently written, the regulations state that discarded species must be accounted for and deducted from QP in vessels accounts, but it does not state that the species with reduced discard amounts because of DMRs should be accounted for when deducting discard amounts from QP in vessels accounts. Revising this regulation would clarify that IFQ species with DMRs should also be accounted for when deducting discard amounts from QP in vessel accounts.
At § 660.230 and § 660.330(b), NMFS is proposing to remove the 25-hook maximum limit on each mainline. As written, the regulations preclude fishermen from adjusting the number of hooks on mainlines if they are using fewer than four mainlines. For example, if a fisherman chooses to only have two mainlines in the water, then the intent of the regulations is to allow a maximum of 50 hooks on each mainline. However, as written, the fisherman would still only be able to use 25 hooks per mainline. The gear specifications require that no more than 100 hooks may be in the water, therefore, removing the 25-hook maximum will not change the intent of the regulations.
At § 660.231, NMFS is proposing to revise the paragraph at (b)(3)(iv) to improve readability. The purpose of these revisions is to make the regulatory text less confusing for fishermen and enforcement to interpret. No substantive changes to this regulation are being proposed.
Pursuant to § 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the PCGFMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. In making its final determination, NMFS will take into account the complete record, including the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the MSA at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Council must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by which the Tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the Tribes, in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50 further direct NMFS to develop Tribal allocations and regulations in consultation with the affected Tribes. The Tribal management measures in this proposed rule have been developed following these procedures. The Tribal representative on the Council made a motion to adopt the non-whiting Tribal management measures, which was passed by the Council. Those management measures, which were developed and proposed by the Tribes, are included in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an Analysis for this action, which addresses the statutory requirements of the MSA, Presidential Executive Order 12866, and the RFA. The full suite of alternatives analyzed by the Council can be found on the Council's website at
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following small entities may be affected by this action: (1) an estimated 6 businesses primarily engaged in seafood product preparation and packaging and employing 750 or fewer persons; (2) an estimated 1,019 commercial fishing businesses with less than $11 million in annual gross receipts; (3) an estimated 357 charter fishing boats all of which are assumed to have annual receipts of less than $7.5 million and are therefore considered to be small businesses; (4) one governmental jurisdiction, with a population of less than 50,000 persons, and therefore considered small;(5) an estimated five not-for-profit organizations with combined annual receipts of less than $7.5 million; and (5) an estimated eight small trust, estates, and agency accounts with annual receipts of less than $32.5 million.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve Pacific Coast groundfish stocks by preventing overfishing, while still allowing harvest opportunity among the various fishery sectors. This will be accomplished by implementing the 2025-26 biennial specifications in the U.S. EEZ off the West Coast. The harvest specifications affect large and small entities similarly, and for this biennium, the catch limit for sablefish (one of the most profitable stocks) is increasing, providing benefit to all participants. Additionally, this proposed rule contains new management measures that are likely to benefit vessels. Specifically, re-combining area-specific allocations for shortspine thornyhead is expected to relieve economic loss and provide additional fishing opportunity for non-trawl vessels north of 34°27′ N lat. The recreational sector may benefit from the proposed new management measure to require descending devices on board fishing vessel. Use of descending devices is known to reduce discard mortality, which may lead to potential
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA. This proposed rule revises existing requirements for information collection 0648-0203, Northwest Region Federal Fisheries Permits. The main change to this collection is the addition of a new directed groundfish open access fishery permit. The addition of this permit will increase the number of respondents for this collection by 400 respondents. The public reporting burden for the directed groundfish open access permit is estimated to average 20 minutes per respondent, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This results in an additional 133 hours for the time burden for this collection (1,953 hours to 2,086 hours). The additional permit will also result in additional labor costs of $2,226.67 and $40,000 in miscellaneous costs to the public.
NMFS seeks public comment regarding whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility. NMFS also seeks public comment regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(3) Pacific sand lance (
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A)
(B)
(1)
(7)
(i) Nearshore rockfish includes black rockfish,
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(
(
(
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(1)
(2)
(a) * * *
(22) Take and retain, possess, or land groundfish in the directed open access fishery without having a valid directed open access permit for the vessel.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The limited entry fixed gear trip limit fisheries subject to the trip limits in tables 2b (North) and 2b (South) to
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A)
(B)
(d) * * *
(3)
(4) * * *
(iv) Declaration reports will include: The vessel name and/or identification number, gear type, and monitoring type where applicable, (as defined in paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section). Upon receipt of a declaration report, NMFS will provide a confirmation code or receipt to confirm that a valid declaration report was received for the vessel. Retention of the confirmation code or receipt to verify that a valid declaration report was filed and the declaration requirement was met is the responsibility of the vessel owner or operator. Vessels using non-trawl gear may declare more than one gear type, with the exception of vessels participating in the Shorebased IFQ Program (
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii)
(i)
(i)
(A) A permit issued under this paragraph (i) is valid only for the vessel for which it is registered.
(B) A permit issued under this paragraph (i) not registered for use with a particular vessel is not valid.
(C) Only a person eligible to own a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 12103 may be issued or may hold a directed open access vessel permit.
(D) No individual may alter, erase, mutilate, or forge any permit or document issued under this section. Any such permit or document that is intentionally altered, erased, mutilated, or forged is invalid.
(ii)
(A) A vessel owner must contact SFD if the vessel for which the permit is issued is sold, ownership of the vessel is transferred, the vessel is renamed, or any other reason for which the documentation of the vessel is changed as the change may invalidate the current permit.
(B) In the case where a permit is invalidated due to a change in documentation, a new permit application is required. To submit a new application, please complete the process outlined below in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
(iii) Civil Procedures. SFD may suspend, revoke, or modify any permit issued under this section under policies and procedures in title 15 CFR part 904, or other applicable regulations in this chapter.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) An application form that contains valid responses for all required data fields, information, and signatures.
(B) A copy of the current (not expired) U.S. Coast Guard Documentation Form or state registration form for the vessel.
(C) Payment of required fees as required at paragraph (f) of this section.
(D) Additional documentation SFD may require as it deems necessary to make a determination on the application.
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(iv)
(A)
(B)
(b)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(ii) For the commercial harvest of black rockfish off Washington State, a treaty Indian Tribes' harvest guideline is set at 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) for the area north of Cape Alava, WA (48°09.50′ N lat.) and 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) for the area between Destruction Island, WA (47°40′ N lat.) and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N lat.). This harvest guideline applies and is available to the Pacific Coast treaty Indian Tribes. There are no Tribal harvest restrictions for black rockfish in the area between Cape Alava and Destruction Island.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(ii) The Tribal allocation is 2,869 mt in 2025 and 2,724 mt in 2026. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey through Vancouver area (North of 36°N lat.) ACL, including estimated discard mortality.
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(2) The fishery harvest guideline for Pacific whiting is allocated among three sectors, as follows: 34 percent for the C/P Co-op Program; 24 percent for the MS Co-op Program; and 42 percent for the Shorebased IFQ Program. No more than 5 percent of the Shorebased IFQ Program allocation may be taken and retained south of 42° N lat. before the start of the primary Pacific whiting season north of 42° N lat. Specific sector allocations for a given calendar year are found in tables 1a through c and 2a through c of this subpart. Set-asides for other species for the at-sea whiting fishery for a given calendar year are established through the biennial specifications process.
(b) * * *
(1) Except for Pacific whiting, every biennium, NMFS will implement OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs, if applicable, for each species or species group based on the harvest controls used in the previous biennium (referred to as default harvest control rules) applied to the best available scientific information. The default harvest control rules for each species or species group are listed in the biennial SAFE document. NMFS may implement OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs, if applicable, that vary from the default harvest control rules based on a Council recommendation.
(c)
(1) * * *
(i)
(g)
(h) * * *
(1)
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(D)
(
(
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
Harvest specifications include OFLs, ABCs, and the designation of OYs and ACLs. Management measures necessary to keep catch within the ACL include ACTs, HGs, or quotas for species that need individual management, the allocation of fishery HGs between the trawl and non-trawl segments of the fishery, and the allocation of commercial HGs between the open access and limited entry segments of the fishery. These specifications account for fish caught in state ocean waters (0-3 nm (0-5.6 km) offshore), though that fishing activity is governed by the States of Washington, Oregon, and California respectively. Catch of a stock in State waters is taken off the top of the harvest specifications for the stock in the EEZ (3-200 nm (5.6-370.4 km) offshore). Harvest specifications are provided in tables 1a through 2d of this subpart.
(a) * * *
(95) 39°32.47′ N lat., 123°52.25′ W long.;
(96) 39°21.86′ N lat., 123°54.13′ W long.;
(97) 39°8.35′ N lat., 123°49.67′ W long.;
(98) 38°57.50′ N lat., 123°49.42′ W long.;
(99) 38°51.20′ N lat., 123°46.09′ W long.;
(100) 38°29.47′ N lat., 123°20.19′ W long.;
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(4)
(e) * * *
(3)
(b) * * *
(3)
(g) * * *
(2) The amount of whole whiting on board does not exceed the trip limit (if any) allowed under § 660.60(c) or table 1b (North) or 1b (South) in subpart D.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(g)
The Trawl RCA is an area closed to fishing with groundfish trawl gear, as defined at § 660.11. Trawl RCA boundaries apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state closures. Trawl RCA boundaries or Block Area Closures (BACs) may be revised or implemented via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. Vessels fishing groundfish trawl quota pounds with groundfish non-trawl gears, under gear switching provisions at § 660.140, are subject to the limited entry fixed gear Non-Trawl RCA, as described in tables 2a (North) and 2a (South) to part 660, subpart E.
This table describes incidental landing allowances for vessels registered to a Federal limited entry trawl permit. Trip limits apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state trip limits. Trip limits are effective year-round unless otherwise specified for different cumulative periods (defined at § 660.11 under “Trip limits”). Trip limits are effective from the U.S.-Canada border to 40°10′ N lat. unless otherwise specified via latitudinal or state subdivisions in this table. Stock complexes are defined at § 660.11 under “Groundfish”. Trip limits may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.20462. The resulting quotient is the weight in kilograms. See provisions at § 660.130 for gear restrictions and requirements by area. Vessels fishing groundfish trawl quota pounds with groundfish non-trawl gears, under gear switching provisions at § 660.140, are subject to the limited entry groundfish trawl fishery landing allowances in this table, regardless of the type of fishing gear used.
The Trawl RCA is an area closed to fishing with groundfish trawl gear, as defined at § 660.11. Trawl RCA boundaries apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state closures. Trawl RCA boundaries or Block Area Closures (BACs) may be revised or implemented via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. Vessels fishing groundfish trawl quota pounds with groundfish non-trawl gears, under gear switching provisions at § 660.140, are subject to the limited entry fixed gear Non-Trawl RCA, as described in tables 2a (North) and 2a (South) to part 660, subpart E.
This table describes incidental landing allowances for vessels registered to a Federal limited entry trawl permit. Trip limits apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state trip limits. Trip limits are effective year-round unless otherwise specified for different cumulative periods (defined at § 660.11 under “Trip limits”). Trip limits are effective from 40°10′ N lat. to the U.S.-Mexico border unless otherwise specified via latitudinal or state subdivisions in this table. Stock complexes are defined at § 660.11 under “Groundfish”. Trip limits may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.20462. The resulting quotient is the weight in kilograms. See provisions at § 660.130 for gear restrictions and requirements by area. Vessels fishing groundfish trawl quota pounds with groundfish non-trawl gears, under gear switching provisions at § 660.140, are subject to the limited entry groundfish trawl fishery landing allowances in this table, regardless of the type of fishing gear used.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) No more than four vertical mainlines attached to or fished from the vessel (
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph (a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use with that
(iv) Incidental Pacific halibut retention north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N lat.). Pacific halibut may be retained north of Pt Chehalis by vessels participating in the sablefish primary fishery with the requisite Pacific halibut commercial fishery permit. Pacific halibut incidentally caught in the primary sablefish fishery when using bottom longline gear may be retained from April 1 through the Pacific halibut commercial fishing closure date set by the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Vessels permitted as described in this section may possess and land up to 130 lb (59 kg) dressed weight of Pacific halibut for every 1,000 lb (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed, plus two additional Pacific halibut. Pacific halibut retained as described in this section may not be possessed or landed south of Pt. Chehalis.
(a) * * *
(3) Vessels registered for use with a limited entry fixed gear permit that does not have a sablefish endorsement may fish in the limited entry DTL fishery, consistent with regulations at § 660.230, for as long as that fishery is open during the fishing year, subject to routine management measures imposed under § 660.60(c), Subpart C. DTL limits for the limited entry fishery north and south of 36° N lat. are provided in tables 2b (North) and 2b (South) of this subpart.
The Non-Trawl RCA is an area closed to fishing with particular non-trawl gear types, as defined at § 660.11. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state closures. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year.
Trip limits apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state trip limits. Trip limits are effective year-round unless otherwise specified for different cumulative periods (defined at § 660.11 under “Trip limits”). Trip limits are effective from the U.S.-Canada border to 40°10′ N lat. unless otherwise specified via latitudinal or state subdivisions in this table. Stock complexes are defined at § 660.11 under “Groundfish”. Trip limits may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.20462. The resulting quotient is the weight in kilograms.
The Non-Trawl RCA is an area closed to fishing with particular non-trawl gear types, as defined at § 660.11. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state closures. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year.
Trip limits apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state trip limits. Trip limits are effective year-round unless otherwise specified for different cumulative periods (defined at § 660.11 under “Trip limits”). Trip limits are effective from 40°10′ N lat. to the U.S.-Mexico border unless otherwise specified via latitudinal or state subdivisions in this table. Stock complexes are defined at § 660.11 under “Groundfish”. Trip limits may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.20462. The resulting quotient is the weight in kilograms.
(a) * * *
(6) Take and retain, possess, or land groundfish in the directed open access fishery without having a valid directed open access permit for the vessel.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(3)
(i) * * *
(B) No more than four vertical mainlines attached to or fished from the vessel (
(C) No more than 100 hooks may be in the water at one time, with no more than 25 extra hooks on board the vessel.
(b) * * *
(1) Daily and/or weekly trip limits for the open access fishery north and south of 36° N lat. are provided in tables 3b (North) and 3b (South) of this subpart.
32. Amend § 660.333 by revising paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (g), and adding new paragraph (e) and paragraphs (f), (h), and (i).
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a)
(e)
(2) 38.00° N lat.-34° 27 N lat.: 100 fm to 150 fm
(3) South of 34° 27 N lat.: 100 fm to 150 fm
(f)
(1) Land up to 100 lb (45 kg) per day of groundfish without the ratio requirement, provided that at least one California halibut is landed; and
(2) Land up to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per month of flatfish, no more than 300 lb (136 kg) of which may be species other than Pacific sanddabs, sand sole, starry flounder, rock sole, curlfin sole, or California scorpionfish (California scorpionfish is also subject to the trip limits and closures in table 3b South).
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
(2) In the area south of 40° 10′ N lat., salmon trollers may retain and land up to 1 lb (0.45 kg) of yellowtail rockfish for every 2 lb (0.90 kg) of Chinook salmon landed, with a cumulative limit of 200 lb (91 kg)/month, both within and outside of the Non-Trawl RCA. This limit is within the trip limits for shelf rockfish, and not in addition to those limits. All groundfish species are subject to the open access limits, seasons, size limits, and RCA restrictions listed in tables 3a (South) and 3b (South) to this subpart, unless otherwise stated here.
The Non-Trawl RCA is an area closed to fishing with particular non-trawl gear types, as defined at § 660.11. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state closures. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year.
Trip limits apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state trip limits. Trip limits are effective year-round unless otherwise specified for different cumulative periods (defined at § 660.11 under “Trip limits”). Trip limits are effective from the U.S.-Canada border to 40°10′ N lat. unless otherwise specified via latitudinal or state subdivisions in this table. Stock complexes are defined at § 660.11 under “Groundfish”. Trip limits may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.20462. The resulting quotient is the weight in kilograms.
The Non-Trawl RCA is an area closed to fishing with particular non-trawl gear types, as defined at § 660.11. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state closures. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year.
Trip limits apply in the EEZ only; see appropriate state regulations for state trip limits. Trip limits are effective year-round unless otherwise specified for different cumulative periods (defined at § 660.11 under “Trip limits”). Trip limits are effective from 40°10′ N lat. to the U.S.-Mexico border unless otherwise specified via latitudinal or state subdivisions in this table. Stock complexes are defined at § 660.11 under “Groundfish”. Trip limits may be revised via inseason action; therefore, users should refer back to this table throughout the year. To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.20462. The resulting quotient is the weight in kilograms.
(c) Fail to have at least one functional descending device on board ready for immediate use during a groundfish recreational fishing trip.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) All vessels participating in the groundfish recreational fishery seaward of California, Oregon, or Washington must carry on board one functional descending device as defined at § 660.351. The descending device must be available for immediate use and be available to present to an enforcement officer upon request.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(1)
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(ii) * * *
(C)
(iii) * * *
(D)
(v) * * *
(C)
(p) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The vessel must retain IFQ species (as defined at § 660.140(c)), except for Arrowtooth flounder, English sole, Dover sole, deep sea sole, Pacific sanddab, Pacific whiting, lingcod, sablefish, starry flounder, and rex sole; must retain salmon and eulachon; and must retain the following non-IFQ species: Greenland turbot, slender sole, hybrid sole, c-o sole, bigmouth sole, fantail sole, hornyhead turbot, spotted turbot, northern rockfish, black rockfish, blue rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, olive rockfish, Puget Sound rockfish, semaphore rockfish, walleye pollock, slender codling, and Pacific tom cod, with exceptions listed in paragraphs (p)(4)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.