Food and Nutrition Service
Rural Housing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Interim final rule with request for public comment; correcting amendment.
On July 3, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published the “Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B); Extension of Compliance Dates” interim final rule with request for public comment (interim rule) in the
This correction is effective September 19, 2024.
George Karithanom, Regulatory Implementation and Guidance Program Analyst, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
On July 3, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published the interim rule in the
Banks, banking, Civil rights, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Marital status discrimination, National banks, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the CFPB amends Regulation B, 12 CFR part 1002, by making the following correcting amendment:
12 U.S.C. 5512, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1691b. Subpart B is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective date: 0901 UTC October 31, 2024.
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Amendment of Jet Route J-133 and Establishment of Area Navigation Route Q-801 in the Vicinity of Anchorage, SK, published in the
J-133: Jet route J-133 extends between Anchorage, AK, VOR/DME and Galena, AK, VOR/DME.
From Galena, AK to Anchorage, AK.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule incorporates various changes required by the United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015. This final rule provides regulatory clarity to applicants seeking licenses for space flight operations involving government astronauts by adding two new subparts to the human space flight regulations containing requirements for operators with government astronauts with and without safety-critical roles on board vehicles.
Effective November 18, 2024.
The compliance date for this final rule is November 18, 2024.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How to Obtain Additional Information” in the
Charles Huet, Space Policy Division, Space Regulations and Standards Branch, ASZ-210, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 306-9069; email
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 (the Act), authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites within the United States (U.S.) or as carried out by U.S. citizens. Section 50905 directs the Secretary to exercise this responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, section 50903 requires the Secretary to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector. As codified in 49 CFR 1.83(b), the Secretary has delegated authority to the FAA Administrator to carry out these functions.
This rule makes several changes to incorporate government astronauts in the regulations, in accordance with the United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA).
Additionally, this rule expands the applicability of part 437 to include launching or reentering certain reusable suborbital vehicles. The rule also revises parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440,
The rule revises part 440 in accordance with the statute and makes conforming amendments. Specifically, it updates the financial responsibility requirements in part 440 to exclude government astronauts from the definitions of “Third party” and “Maximum probable loss (MPL)”. It also adds space flight participants to the insurance requirements in § 440.9 and the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements in § 440.17. Finally, this rule removes the templates for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibilities in appendices B through E of part 440 from the regulations and places them in a separate advisory circular (AC).
The final rule makes several changes from the proposed rule. It replaces the proposed term “human being,” proposed in the notice, with “crew, space flight participant, or government astronaut” in the human space flight requirements of 14 CFR 415.8, 431.8, 435.8, and 437.21(b)(3). In 14 CFR 440.3, the final rule does not adopt the proposed change to government personnel; and excludes government astronaut from the definitions of MPL and third party. The final rule amends the proposed language regarding the reciprocal waiver of claims templates to specify that the templates contained in advisory circular AC 440.17-1 satisfy the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements in 14 CFR 440.17. The final rule replaces the proposed requirement in 14 CFR 460.59(d)(1) to track and update government astronaut training in writing with the requirement to provide traceability to revisions or changes to government astronaut training. Finally, the final rule changes the proposed requirement for operators to train government astronauts in 14 CFR 460.59 and 460.67 to a requirement that operators ensure government astronauts are trained.
These changes have a minimal impact on licensed commercial space activity with government astronauts because the changes align regulations with the current statutory requirements and practices for crew, space flight participants, and government astronauts. The FAA has been applying the statutory changes since they went into effect in 2015. Since this rule codifies these current practices, there is effectively no change from the baseline practice without the rule, and therefore no measurable resulting benefits or costs.
On August 18, 2023, the FAA published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act Incorporation” (88 FR 56546). The FAA also posted draft guidance material for the proposal in the form of a draft “AC 440.17-1 Reciprocal Waiver of Claims Requirements” for comment in the NPRM docket. This NPRM proposed to amend 14 CFR parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 450, and 460 by incorporating statutory changes resulting from the CSLCA. The NPRM proposed to add definitions for “Government astronaut,” “International partner astronaut,” and “International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement” and revise other definitions required to address the addition of “Government astronaut.” The NPRM also proposed expanding applicability of permitted operations for suborbital rockets to suborbital launch and reentry vehicles; revising the human space flight sections of parts 415, 431, 435, 437, and 450 to include the term “human being” to incorporate government astronauts; updating the financial responsibility requirements to exclude government astronauts from the definitions of “Third party” and “Government personnel” in part 440; adding space flight participants to the insurance requirements in § 440.9, and the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements in § 440.17; and removing the templates for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibilities in appendices B through E of part 440 from the regulations and placing them in a separate advisory circular (AC). Finally, the NPRM proposed creating two new subparts in 14 CFR part 460 to include requirements for operators and applicants who's licensed or permitted operations involve government astronauts with and without safety-critical roles on board a vehicle.
The FAA received 15 comments from individuals, industry associations, and launch and reentry operators. All of the commenters generally supported the proposed changes; however, some suggested changes to the proposal, as discussed more fully in Section IV.
The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the proposal:
The final rule does not adopt the proposed change to the definition of “government personnel” in 14 CFR 440.3; and excludes government astronauts from the definitions of third party and maximum probable loss in the same section. The final rule replaces the proposed term “human being” with “crew, space flight participant, or government astronaut” in 14 CFR 415.8, 431.8, 435.8, and 437.21(b)(3). The FAA also amends the government astronaut training requirements in the final rule to make clear that an operator must ensure government astronauts are appropriately trained but is not required to conduct that training itself. Finally, the final rule allows electronic means of tracking government astronaut training.
The FAA makes changes to this final rule in response to comments made by the public. Summaries of the comments and the FAA's responses are grouped by category in the following subsections.
In accordance with the CSLCA,
Title 51 U.S.C. chapter 509 requires a licensee to obtain insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in amounts to compensate for the maximum probable loss from claims by third parties and the United States Government (USG) for certain specified claims. 51 U.S.C. 50914(a)(1). By excluding government astronauts from the definition of third party, government astronauts must also necessarily be excluded from the MPL calculation in § 50914(a)(1)(A). The NPRM proposed to exclude government astronauts from the definition of “third party” and consequently the definition of “government personnel” because government personnel are third parties under 14 CFR 440.3. Under the proposal, the presence of government astronauts during licensed or permitted activities would not affect the amount of insurance coverage operators are required to obtain under 14 CFR 440.9. Additionally, by excluding government astronauts from the definition of “government personnel” in § 440.3, government astronauts would have also necessarily been excluded as additional insureds under § 440.9(b).
Multiple commenters indicated that it is not clear in the NPRM who is responsible for losses to government astronauts during licensed activities. Sierra Space commented that it believes section 112(j) of the CSLCA amended the definition of “third party” in 51 U.S.C. 50902(26) to exclude government astronauts. Sierra Space found that this is a logical exclusion, as government astronauts are intentionally incorporated and integrated into launch missions and should not be treated as third parties for liability purposes.
Virgin Galactic commented that the removal of government astronauts from the definition of government personnel removes the requirement for licensees to obtain an insurance policy to protect government astronauts from their potential liability in their involvement in launch or reentry services. Virgin Galactic also commented that the exclusion of government astronauts from the definition of third party will prevent the FAA from including potential government astronaut claims in MPL calculations. Virgin Galactic requested that the FAA address the implications the exclusion of government astronauts from the definition of third party will have on MPL determinations and indemnification eligibility under 51 U.S.C. 50915. Virgin Galactic noted that it understands the proposed rule as preventing licensees from being eligible for government indemnification when carrying government astronauts as government astronauts are neither third parties nor government personnel.
In the final rule, the FAA explicitly excludes government astronauts from the definition of “third party” in § 440.3 by adding the phrase “excluding government astronauts” and adding text that excludes government astronauts from government personnel as it is used in the definition of “third party.” Excluding government astronauts from being considered a third party effectively means that government astronauts are not included in MPL calculations and are therefore prevented from bringing claims as third parties. The presence of government astronauts on board a launch or reentry vehicle would therefore not increase MPL values. Because government astronauts are not third parties, they cannot recover for bodily injury or property damage they may suffer during licensed activities using the licensee's or permittee's insurance required under § 440.9. However, the USG could be responsible for losses to government astronauts who are USG employees because the USG agrees to be responsible for personal injury to, death of, or property damage or loss sustained by its own employees through the waiver of claims.
Excluding government astronauts from the definition of third parties does not affect the government indemnification provisions in 51 U.S.C. 50915. Section 50915 states that the USG, subject to appropriation or additional legislative authority, shall provide for the payment of certain successful claims by a third party as a result of licensed activity to the extent the total amount of successful claims related to one launch or reentry exceeds the insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility values and is less than the maximum amount set in § 50915(a)(1)(B). Virgin Galactic stated that it understands the proposal would prevent licensees from being eligible for government indemnification when carrying government astronauts as the government astronauts are neither third parties nor government personnel under the proposed rule.
The characterization of government astronauts as not being third parties under the CSLCA and part 440 does not affect whether a licensee receives government indemnification under § 50915. Rather, the total number of successful claims, along with the necessary appropriations or legislation, are determining factors in whether a licensee receives government indemnification. A licensed activity with only government astronauts on board would not render that activity ineligible for government indemnification of a successful claim of a third party.
In the final rule, the FAA does not amend the definition of government personnel in 14 CFR 440.3. By rulemaking finalized in 1998, the FAA added the term “government personnel” to part 440 and added government personnel to the list of additional insureds. Financial Responsibility Requirements for Licensed Launch Activities, Final Rule, 63 FR 45592 (Aug. 26, 1998). As it explained in the preamble to the final rule, the FAA made these changes in response to a Senate Report stating that Congress intended for government personnel directly associated with the commercial launch operations to be classified as third parties. S. Rep. No. 100-593 (1988). The FAA additionally stated in the Financial Responsibility Requirements for Licensed Launch Activities NPRM, published in 1996, that treating government personnel as third parties and naming them as additional insureds is in accord with the definition of third party contained in the statute. Financial Responsibility Requirements for Licensed Launch Activities, NPRM, 61 FR 38992 (July 25, 1996). This is because employees of the USG are different than the USG as an entity. Because of this distinction, treating USG employees as third parties did not conflict with the statute.
In 2015, Congress explicitly excluded government astronauts from the definition of third parties. There is no legislative history to suggest that Congress also wanted the FAA to exclude government astronauts who are USG personnel from being protected as additional insureds. In fact, under the CSLCA, Congress made changes to the additional insureds requirement in 51 U.S.C. 50914(a)(4) by adding space flight participants as additional insureds but did not make any changes to explicitly exclude government astronauts. Therefore, government astronauts who are USG personnel should also be treated as additional insureds. The FAA need not make any changes to § 440.9(b) to include government astronauts because any government astronauts who are employees of the USG are necessarily
This rule finalizes the proposal to create two new subparts in part 460 to address the training of government astronauts with safety-critical and non-safety-critical roles during licensed activity. The FAA revises the language in the proposal regarding training government astronauts to clarify that while an operator is responsible for ensuring that a government astronaut is appropriately trained, the operator itself is not required to conduct the training.
SpaceX commented that the FAA's proposed changes to part 460 would duplicate training requirements with no material increase to public safety and would place additional regulatory burden on operators. SpaceX argued that NASA's training requirements are sufficient and should automatically be accepted by the FAA. SpaceX also noted that it believes the NPRM could potentially conflict with NASA's or other government agencies' training requirements in the future. SpaceX stated that the FAA already recognizes the appropriateness of certain NASA training requirements by referring to them in the NPRM. SpaceX also noted that all or nearly all of the part 460 regulations could be met by current Crew Dragon training approved by NASA as part of the Commercial Crew Program. While SpaceX agreed with the FAA's statements in the NPRM that the FAA has broader regulatory authority to protect public safety, SpaceX does not believe the FAA has articulated why a streamlined acceptance of NASA training requirements is insufficient to protect public safety. To support its position, SpaceX stated that the part 450 payload review and determination requirements explicitly remove any duplication of government oversight in § 450.43(b) in which the FAA defers payload review to agencies with principal regulatory responsibility. SpaceX noted that the FAA should adopt the same approach as it relates to government astronaut training requirements in part 460. SpaceX recommended that the FAA revise the final rule to codify that its training requirements are “not intended to duplicate, conflict with, or replace NASA's training requirements for government astronauts” by following the § 450.43(b) model. SpaceX suggested a single update in § 460.59 applicable only to government astronauts that states “An operator must certify that each government astronaut is trained in accordance with requirements established or approved by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for government astronauts.” SpaceX stated that these revisions will provide flexibility for any future updates to training processes with NASA or the incorporation of NASA-approved training regimens with other government agencies, both domestically and internationally.
Under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509, the FAA has the authority and responsibility to protect public safety during launches and reentries. NASA does not share this public safety oversight authority. Because government astronauts may have the ability to affect public safety, the FAA must establish regulations to mitigate any public safety risk. Furthermore, the FAA notes that NASA does not currently provide all government astronaut training for a commercially operated mission. An operator would provide vehicle- and mission-specific training because it is the most familiar with the specific vehicle and operation. The FAA chose to use part 460 crew training requirements to evaluate past licenses involving government astronauts because crew similarly have the capability to affect public safety. An operator can meet part 460 requirements by leveraging the contractual obligations between NASA and the operator. NASA contractual obligations require the operator to comply with requirements NASA uses to certify operations to the International Space Station contained in the Crew Transportation Technical Management Process CCT-PLN-1120 Section 6.3.1, Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document CCT-REQ-1130 Section 3.8.5.1, and Crew Transportation Operations Standards CCT-STD-1150 Section 5. NASA certifies that government astronauts received the training required by contract, and the FAA uses that certification as verification that the operator meets the FAA regulations. NASA provides certification and the FAA evaluates the contractual requirements during the licensing process. The FAA notes that there will be no change to how licenses involving government astronauts are evaluated and issued as a result of this rule.
The payload review requirements in 14 CFR 450.43(b) specify that the FAA will not make a payload determination for those aspects of payloads that are subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Department of Commerce. The FAA will review all payloads to determine their effect on safety of launch but will not make a determination on those aspects of payloads that are subject to regulation by the FCC or the Department of Commerce.
While the FAA maintains its authority to issue regulations relating to the training of government astronauts to protect public safety, it acknowledges that the operator may not always be the entity conducting the training. For example, some training may be provided by NASA or by a contractor. Therefore, in this final rule the FAA changes the text in §§ 460.59 and 460.67 training sections for government astronauts from “an operator must train each government astronaut” to “an operator must ensure that each government astronaut is trained”. Instead of requiring operators to train each government astronaut, the FAA rule specifies that an operator must ensure that training has been provided to each government astronaut. This change clarifies that operators do not necessarily need to be the entity providing the training; however, the requirement is still levied on the operator to ensure that government astronauts have been trained in accordance with the regulatory requirements.
This final rule does not require government astronauts to sign informed consent forms with operators. Two commenters disagreed with this approach.
Virgin Galactic commented that not all potential government astronauts may be in the NASA Astronaut Corps or have the level of training to understand the inherent risks associated with spaceflight activities. Virgin Galactic also commented that there are several state statutes that protect licensees from liability when informed consent is provided.
Blue Origin commented that the requirements in § 460.45 are intended to illuminate the specific risks and hazards associated with the commercial safety record of each launch vehicle, as well as the general risks of spaceflight. Blue Origin noted that it remains prudent to provide government astronauts with the same information and opportunities for dialogue available to space flight participants. Blue Origin also recommended that government astronauts without safety-critical roles
The FAA is not adding a requirement that government astronauts provide informed consent to the final rule because, as it stated in the NPRM, government astronauts are aware of the risks of space flight. As explained in the NPRM, the NASA Administrator designates government astronauts, and that designation implies appropriate knowledge and training for the performance of official duties. In addition, there is no statutory requirement for government astronauts to sign informed consent forms and doing so may interfere with their rights under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Therefore, the U.S. government should inform government astronauts of any risks they may be exposed to while performing official duties. This applies to all government astronauts, including those with a safety-critical role.
In response to Virgin Galactic's concern that state statutes protect licensees from liability when informed consent is provided, in most, if not all, of these states the respective statutes provide specific informed consent language that serves as a waiver of claims between the operator and the participant. The consideration of informed consent as a waiver of claims is further reason why a government astronaut should not sign an informed consent agreement with the operator because government astronauts do not waive claims.
In response to Blue Origin's comment that government astronauts should receive the same mission information and opportunity to discuss that information with the operator, the FAA notes that the fact that there is not a regulatory requirement for government astronauts to sign an informed consent form does not preclude operators from providing information to and speaking with government astronauts. An operator may inform a government astronaut about the unique risks and safety record of the vehicle, but the FAA will not require a government astronaut's signature on an informed consent agreement.
This rule finalizes the proposal to move the templates for waiver of claims in appendix B through E of part 440 to a separate advisory circular and adds language to clarify that these templates are approved by the FAA and may be used to meet the requirements in § 440.17.
SpaceX disagreed with moving the templates to a separate advisory circular. Specifically, SpaceX noted that the inclusion of cross-waivers in the part 440 appendices has streamlined negotiations related to cross-waivers between licensees or permittees and customers and has therefore also lessened FAA's burden to review cross-waiver submissions to ensure compliance with the regulations. SpaceX stated that although the current language of § 440.17 allows for submission of a “form that otherwise provides all the same obligations and benefits” as the cross-waivers contained in the part 440 appendices, as a practical matter, licensees simply submit the cross-waiver forms contained in the appendices. SpaceX emphasized that moving the sample forms out of an appendix into a separate advisory circular will be confusing to less frequent signers of cross-waivers and will encourage more negotiation between the licensee or permittee and the individuals or entities required to sign cross-waivers. SpaceX noted that any such negotiation that results in changes to the cross-waiver language will then add to the FAA's burden by requiring the FAA to spend additional time reviewing the submission to ensure compliance with § 440.17.
Sierra Space commented that the language proposed in § 440.17 could potentially be read to imply that the Administrator must approve the form used for the waivers in each case. Sierra Space recommended rewording the language in § 440.17 to clarify that review or approval by the Administrator is not required if a licensee adopts the language already set forth in a template published by the FAA.
An individual commented that they support the FAA's proposal to move the cross-waiver templates to an advisory circular because the templates are merely examples of how to meet a regulation and are not themselves regulatory.
This rule moves the waiver of claims templates from the part 440 appendices to an advisory circular because these templates are not regulatory, but simply examples, and moving them to an advisory circular provides greater flexibility to update or revise as needed. These templates are provided to assist operators with meeting the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements but are not the only means by which an operator may meet those requirements. They are, therefore, more appropriately located in an advisory circular. SpaceX and Sierra Space commented that the language in the NPRM's proposed § 440.17 was not clear that the waiver of claims forms in the advisory circular would be acceptable and approved by the FAA without the need for additional legal review, unless modified. Therefore, the FAA is revising the language in § 440.17 to state: “The reciprocal waiver of claims must be in a form acceptable to the Administrator, such as those contained in advisory circular AC 440.17-1.” This change will clarify that the reciprocal waiver of claims templates found in AC 4401.17-1, or any future updates, are acceptable to the FAA and may be used to meet the requirements in § 440.17.
The final rule would not prohibit government astronauts from being onboard during permitted operations.
Ascendant Spaceflight Services (Ascendant) commented that the FAA should delete references to “government astronaut” in permitted operations because suborbital vehicles in the development or experimental phase would not be carrying government astronauts. Rather, those vehicles would only be carrying crew. Ascendant asserted that experimental permit human space flight requirements in § 437.5 only apply to crew.
The FAA does not agree. While § 437.5 does identify launch or reentry for the purpose of crew training as eligible for an experimental permit, § 437.5(b) states that eligibility for a permit also includes a showing of compliance with requirements for obtaining a license. An operator may choose to conduct an operation with government astronauts on board under an experimental permit to demonstrate compliance with a requirement to obtain a license. Although no government astronauts have flown on a permitted vehicle to date, it is possible they might in the future to train for a licensed mission.
The final rule revises proposed § 460.59(d)(1) to require operators ensure government astronaut training is up to date by incorporating lessons
The FAA received two comments on this issue. ALPA supported the FAA's proposals requiring operators to track and update the training of government astronauts. SpaceX, however, recommended providing more flexibility for tracking changes to training. SpaceX explained that it utilizes a sophisticated change control system to track updates to training and suggested revising proposed § 460.59(d)(1) to require an operator to update the government astronaut training continually to ensure the training incorporates lessons learned from training and operational missions by providing traceability to revisions or changes.
The FAA agrees with SpaceX's suggested change. Proposed § 460.59(d)(1) would require all revisions to training to be tracked in written form. The FAA finds that SpaceX's recommended change would provide FAA with sufficient compliance insight through traceability, which meets the intent of the FAA's initial proposed § 460.59(d)(1), while also permitting operators to use modern electronic systems. The FAA adopts SpaceX's proposed language in the final rule.
This rule finalizes the proposal to require operators to establish environmental controls for operations involving government astronauts with a safety-critical role because, as with crew, the FAA found that government astronauts would likewise need to be protected from atmospheric conditions and receive training that is necessary for the safety of the public on the ground, in air, and in space.
The FAA received two comments on this issue. An individual questioned whether environmental controls referred to life support systems or environmental impacts. Environmental controls in these regulations do refer to life support systems. SpaceX commented that humidity is not a safety-critical metric of determining suitable atmospheric conditions for human beings and that compared to other conditions listed within the subparts to § 460.61, humidity is an outlier given that it is not a direct risk to life and consciousness.
The FAA retains humidity in § 460.61(a)(2) in the final rule. The FAA notes that while very high humidity environments could influence core body temperature, the time high humidity would take to cause an impact would be much longer than impacts from pressure and temperature changes in the inhabited area of a vehicle. However, if a flight crew depended on visual information through a window, humidity control would be necessary to avoid windows fogging and condensation that can hinder a pilot's vision and could therefore impact public safety.
In this rule, the FAA replaces the proposed term “human beings” with the defined terms “space flight participant,” “crew,” and “government astronaut” where appropriate. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to use the term “human being” to encompass all three categories of persons who can currently be carried on board a vehicle: government astronaut, space flight participant, and crew.
The FAA received two comments on this issue. Sierra Space commented that the NPRM's use of the term “human beings” could potentially lead individuals, lawmakers, courts, and licensees to incorrectly assume that there is some other category of humans who may be present on board licensed operations besides those that have already been defined (space flight participants, crew, and government astronauts). Sierra Space stated that the FAA should remove the use of “human beings” and instead revert to listing each category of individuals to which the language applies. An individual similarly commented that the classification of non-astronaut workers as “human beings” is an unnecessary classification that would only overcomplicate future requirements on these workers.
The FAA finds that using the term “human beings” could cause unnecessary confusion among stakeholders and therefore is removing that term in the final rule. Instead, the FAA is replacing “human beings” with the defined terms “space flight participant,” “crew,” and “government astronaut” where appropriate.
This rule finalizes proposed § 460.59(b)(3), which requires an operator to ensure any government astronaut with a safety-critical role possesses aeronautical knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to pilot and control the launch or reentry vehicle that will operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). The regulation specifies that aeronautical experience may include hours in flight, ratings, and training.
SpaceX commented that proposed § 460.59(b)(3) would transfer an existing requirement onto operators to ensure government astronauts are trained, and that NASA should continue to hold this responsibility and set forth any requirements it deems suitable for designated astronauts as set forth in 51 U.S.C. 50902(4). To support its position, SpaceX noted that the training requirement is tailored to winged vehicles rather than fully automated capsules, such as its Crew Dragon, which are not maneuverable during launch and reentry, and which utilize Notices to Air Missions and Notices to Mariners to remove the need for in-flight and real-time coordination within airspace. SpaceX therefore found that the aeronautical knowledge, including hours in aircraft flight, required by proposed § 460.59(b)(3) is irrelevant to safe vehicle operation and recommended that FAA remove this requirement as overly prescriptive and inapplicable.
The FAA disagrees that proposed § 460.59(b)(3) should be removed from the final rule. The requirement for aeronautical knowledge only applies to government astronauts who have the capability to control, in real time, a launch or reentry vehicle's flight path during a phase of flight capable of endangering the public. The requirement is not a blanket requirement for all government astronauts. Autonomous vehicles where government astronauts do not have any input for phases of flight going through the NAS would not need to comply with this requirement as such aeronautical knowledge, experience, and skills would not be necessary. Any NASA requirement for aeronautical knowledge for government astronauts that pilot a vehicle is not redundant because it can be used to demonstrate compliance with the FAA requirement.
This rule finalizes the proposal to replace the term “reusable suborbital rocket” with “reusable suborbital vehicle” in § 437.5. It also finalizes the proposal to remove the term “new” from § 437.5(a) to allow research and development of existing design concepts, equipment, or operating techniques, consistent with the CSLCA.
Ascendant commented that experimental permits should not be limited to suborbital launch vehicles. Ascendant stated that there is no difference in risk to the public between any experimental launch or reentry vehicle, suborbital or orbital, which
The training referenced in § 437.5 refers to training crew in flight to operate a licensed vehicle. The FAA's statutory authority to issue experimental permits only applies to suborbital vehicles, and therefore the FAA does not have the authority to expand the applicability of experimental permits to any orbital vehicles. Title 51 U.S.C. 50906 states that the Secretary may issue a permit only for reusable suborbital rockets or reusable launch vehicles that will be launched into a suborbital trajectory or reentered under that permit solely for research and development to test design concepts, equipment, or operating techniques; showing compliance with requirements as part of the process for obtaining a license under this chapter; or crew training for a launch or reentry using the design of the rocket or vehicle for which the permit would be issued. The FAA is only expanding eligibility to launch or reentry vehicles on a suborbital trajectory to align with the CSLCA. Therefore, the FAA will not expand the applicability of experimental permits to any orbital vehicles.
This rule defines “government astronaut” to match the statutory definition and provides regulatory clarity to applicants seeking FAA licenses for space flight operations involving government astronauts.
An individual commented that it may be beneficial to acknowledge U.S. government astronauts flying on board international partner spacecraft and international launch providers. The individual noted that the International Space Station (ISS) currently uses Soyuz vehicles from Russia and that there could be advances in vehicles from ESA and JAXA, for example.
The FAA does not license foreign launch or reentry vehicles that are launching or reentering outside the U.S., and therefore addressing government astronauts flying on board foreign spacecraft that launch or reenter outside the U.S. is outside the scope of the FAA's regulatory authority and this rulemaking.
This rule defines an “International partner astronaut” as an individual designated under Article 11 of the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement, by a partner to that agreement other than the U.S., as qualified to serve as an ISS crew member. This definition was taken directly from the CSLCA.
Sierra Space encouraged the FAA to further clarify the role of international partner astronauts, including clarifying who would not qualify as an international partner astronaut. Sierra Space stated that since the NPRM's definition of “international partner astronaut” applies only to astronauts contributed by ISS partner states who are crewmembers on board the ISS, the term would not apply to international astronauts from non-partner states, nor would it apply to any international astronaut serving missions unrelated to the ISS. Sierra Space concluded that all such individuals would be considered space flight participants under the proposed regulations and would therefore be subject to the waiver and informed consent requirements applicable to space flight participants.
Sierra Space noted that there may be cases in which foreign governments may be unwilling to allow or require their employees to enter the waivers of claims required of space flight participants, or to personally assume the risk of human space flight operations as required by the informed consent regime. Sierra Space stated that the FAA should consider granting latitude to operators carrying astronauts from foreign countries by waiving informed consent and individual waiver requirements, especially if those countries have sufficiently mature astronaut training programs and are willing to accept financial responsibility for claims brought by their employees.
The FAA is adopting the statutory definition of international partner astronaut. The FAA realizes that the statutory definition only applies to ISS partner astronauts. Any foreign astronaut who does not meet the definition of international partner astronaut would be considered a space flight participant under FAA regulations and would have to comply with space flight participant regulations. An operator may request a waiver to the waiver of claims requirement for space flight participants for those instances in which a foreign astronaut is characterized as a space flight participant rather than an international partner astronaut.
SpaceX commented that, in the interest of public safety and the safety of those on board launch and reentry vehicles, the FAA should update the final rule to reflect in its regulations that space flight participants should be trained appropriately to conduct potentially lifesaving functions during an emergency to protect both themselves and the public, including operating a vehicle during launch or reentry in a manner to protect public safety. SpaceX noted that the definitions for crew, government astronaut, and space flight participant within 51 U.S.C. 50902 were developed at a time when Congress anticipated all crewed vehicles to be operated either by crew or by government astronauts. However, SpaceX noted that while the statute provides training for crew and government astronauts, missions that have only had space flight participants on board have occurred for both orbital and suborbital systems. Furthermore, SpaceX stated that the statutory definition of space flight participants, defined in 51 U.S.C. 50902 to be any person that is not crew or a government astronaut, does not prohibit the FAA from requiring an operator to train space flight participants to operate a vehicle during launch or reentry. SpaceX concluded that, therefore, the FAA should revise its regulations to allow an operator to train space flight participants to operate a vehicle during launch or reentry because the underlying statute does not prohibit space flight participant training.
Sierra Space similarly commented that the FAA should adopt common requirements for training which apply to any passenger or remote operator in a safety critical role, regardless of how that individual is classified under the regulations. Sierra Space stated these common requirements should clarify what constitutes a “safety-critical role” to limit the definition to those individuals who are essential to ensuring that the vehicle operates in real time to ensure public safety.
In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose to add training requirements for space flight participants. The FAA explained that whereas the definition of crew in title 51 expressly acknowledges a crew member's ability to perform activities directly relating to operation of the vehicle, the definition of space flight participant contains no express authority to do so. Furthermore, current
The FAA has already addressed training requirements for those missions that only have space flight participants onboard. Under § 460.51, an operator must train each space flight participant before flight on how to respond to emergency situations, including smoke, fire, loss of cabin pressure, and emergency exits. An operator may also provide mission-specific training to space flight participants for missions without crew or government astronauts. The FAA therefore finds that the training required by § 460.51 is sufficient to satisfy missions with only space flight participants on board.
This rule updates definitions relating to commercial space launch and reentry vehicles and occupants to reflect current legislative definitions.
Both the Space Infrastructure Foundation (SIF) and an individual commented that the FAA should use terms identified in AIAA/ANSI S-153 2021 Human Spaceflight: Spacecraft Architecture and Systems Engineering Ontology Standard (S-153) in its applicable commercial space regulations.
SIF stated that because the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA) compels government organizations to adopt industry standards developed under a voluntary consensus process, and failure to do so must be justified to Congress on a case-by-case basis, the FAA should use the standards identified in S-153. An individual stated that S-153 is critical for U.S. commercial spaceflight because it establishes the baseline of the ontology, streamlines interdisciplinary communication, and enables strategic planning, and the FAA should consider S-153's integration into the current rulemaking.
The FAA does not adopt S-153 into its regulations because the updated definitions are required by Congress to reflect current legislative definitions in 51 U.S. Code 50902. Furthermore, the terminology in S-153 does not align with the purpose of this rulemaking because the terminology in S-153 focuses on human spaceflight spacecraft from an architectural and system engineering perspective, rather than on the statutorily required definitions the FAA must incorporate into its regulations.
An individual commented that publishing the MPL methodology would provide greater transparency and reduce uncertainty for commercial space businesses, insurance companies, and investors. The commenter noted that this transparency would pose no risks to national security and that publishing the MPL methodology in an AC would not require notice and comment for modification. The commenter recommended amending § 440.7(a) or (b) to include that the method for determining MPL is set forth in an AC.
The scope of this rulemaking is to codify current statutory requirements mandated by the CSLCA. The FAA finds that providing MPL methodology in an AC is beyond the scope of the rulemaking because it is not a change required by the CSLCA, and this final rule does not pertain to MPL methodology.
Space Law & Policy Solutions noted that the CSLCA contains a provision in title IV which authorizes U.S. citizens to perform non-governmental space activities aimed at the recovery, possession, ownership, use, and sale of asteroid or space resources. Space Law & Policy Solutions noted that the NPRM does not mention title IV nor its enactment in 51 U.S.C. 51303 and asked the FAA a series of related questions. Such questions included (i) why space resources are not mentioned in the NPRM; (ii) whether the FAA deems title IV of the CSLCA as providing the FAA with congressional authority to license space resource activities and if so, whether an amendment is required to its regulations; (iii) whether the FAA deems itself the proper Article VI authorizing agency to review and license a space resource activity; and (iv) whether the FAA believes it requires additional authority from Congress to include on orbit authority to oversee space resource activities. Space Law & Policy Solutions noted that it understands its questions are beyond the scope of the FAA's request in the NPRM, but that the FAA should address the lack of clarity on the licensing and implementation of space resources.
The FAA does not have statutory authority to regulate space resources, and the commenter's questions are out of scope for the current rulemaking.
Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of Executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: will result in benefits that justify costs; is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended; will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This rule amends 14 CFR parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 450, and 460 by incorporating statutory changes resulting from the CSLCA. This rule adds a definition for “government astronaut” and updates other definitions to account for that addition. This rule also updates financial responsibility
This rule affects all U.S. commercial space operators and launches and reentries licensed under 14 CFR parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 450, and 460 that will carry a government astronaut on board. Table 1 details the changes in each part.
There are no changes in the final rule from the proposed rule that notably change the analysis presented for the proposed rule.
These changes will have a minimal impact on licensed commercial space activity with government astronauts because the changes align regulations with the current statutory requirements for crew, for space flight participants, and with current practices. The FAA has been applying the statutory changes since they went into effect in 2015. Since this rule codifies these current practices, there is effectively no change from the baseline without the rule and, therefore, no measurable resulting benefits or costs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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.
This rule updates definitions relating to commercial space launch and reentry vehicles and occupants to reflect current statutory definitions and requirements, as well as implements clarifications to financial responsibility requirements in accordance with the CSLCA. The FAA has been applying the statutory changes since they went into effect in 2015. Since this rule codifies these current practices, the FAA certifies that this rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. The FAA determined that this final rule will not result in the expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
The FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Space transportation and exploration.
Confidential business information, Space transportation and exploration.
Aviation safety, Environmental protection, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
Launch and reentry safety, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Space transportation and exploration.
Launch and reentry safety, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Space transportation and exploration.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
Indemnity payments, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Environmental protection, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Is designated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Title 51, United States Code, Section 20113(n);
(2) Is carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle in the course of their employment, which may include performance of activities directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of the launch vehicle or reentry vehicle; and
(3) Is either—
(i) An employee of the United States Government, including the uniformed services, engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; or
(ii) An international partner astronaut.
(1)
(ii) Under a permit, launch begins when any pre-flight ground operation at a U.S. launch site meets all of the following criteria:
(A) Is closely proximate in time to flight,
(B) Entails critical steps preparatory to initiating flight,
(C) Is unique to space launch, and
(D) Is inherently so hazardous as to warrant the FAA's regulatory oversight.
(2)
(ii) For launch of an orbital reusable launch vehicle (RLV) with a payload, launch ends after deployment of the payload. For any other orbital RLV, launch ends upon completion of the first sustained, steady-state orbit of an RLV at its intended location.
(iii) For a suborbital ELV or RLV launch, launch ends after reaching apogee if the flight includes a reentry, or otherwise after vehicle landing or impact on Earth, and after activities necessary to return the vehicle to a safe condition on the ground.
(1) An event that causes a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the flight;
(2) An event that causes damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the flight that is not located at the launch site or designated recovery area;
(3) An unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle resulting in the impact of a launch vehicle, its payload, or any component thereof:
(i) For an expendable launch vehicle, outside designated impact limit lines; and
(ii) For a reusable launch vehicle, outside a designated landing site.
(4) For a launch that takes place with a person on board, a fatality or serious injury to a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.
(1) Any unplanned event occurring during the reentry of a reentry vehicle resulting in the impact of the reentry vehicle, its payload, or any component thereof, outside a designated reentry site;
(2) An event that causes a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the reentry;
(3) An event that causes damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the reentry and not located within a designated reentry site; and
(4) For a reentry that takes place with a person on board, a fatality or serious injury to a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(1) Is designated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Title 51, United States Code, Section 20113(n);
(2) Is carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle in the course of their employment, which may include performance of activities directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of the launch vehicle or reentry vehicle; and
(3) Is either—
(i) An employee of the United States Government, including the uniformed services, engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; or
(ii) An international partner astronaut.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
(f) A person, individual, or foreign entity otherwise requiring a license under this section may instead obtain an experimental permit to launch or reenter a reusable suborbital vehicle under part 437 of this chapter.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
To obtain a launch license, an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board must demonstrate compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 460.53, 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 of this subchapter.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
To obtain a license, an applicant proposing to conduct a reusable launch vehicle mission with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board must demonstrate compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 460.53, 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 of this subchapter.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
To obtain a reentry license, an applicant proposing to conduct a reentry with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board the vehicle must demonstrate compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 460.53, 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 of this subchapter.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
The FAA will issue an experimental permit to a person to launch or reenter a reusable suborbital vehicle only for—
(a) Research and development to test design concepts, equipment, or operating techniques;
(b) A showing of compliance with requirements for obtaining a license under this subchapter; or
(c) Crew training for a launch or reentry using the design of the reusable suborbital vehicle for which the permit would be issued.
An experimental permit authorizes launch or reentry of a reusable suborbital vehicle. The authorization includes pre- and post-flight ground operations as defined in this section.
(b) A post-flight ground operation includes each operation necessary to return the reusable suborbital vehicle to a safe condition after it lands or impacts.
The FAA issues an experimental permit authorizing an unlimited number of launches or reentries for a reusable suborbital vehicle design for the uses described in § 437.5.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(iv) Information requirements. An application must include an approved FAA Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Statement, categorical exclusion determination, or written re-evaluation covering all planned permitted activities in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA.
(3)
(c)
(d)
(a) An applicant must provide—
(1) Dimensioned three-view drawings or photographs of the reusable suborbital vehicle; and
(2) Gross liftoff weight and thrust profile of the reusable suborbital vehicle.
(b) An applicant must describe—
(1) All reusable suborbital vehicle systems, including any structural, flight control, thermal, pneumatic, hydraulic, propulsion, electrical, environmental control, software and computing systems, avionics, and guidance systems used in the reusable suborbital vehicle;
(2) The types and quantities of all propellants used in the reusable suborbital vehicle;
(3) The types and quantities of any hazardous materials used in the reusable suborbital vehicle;
(4) The purpose for which a reusable suborbital vehicle is to be flown; and
(5) Each payload or payload class planned to be flown.
(c) For each operating area, provide the planned maximum altitude of the reusable suborbital vehicle.
(a) An applicant must identify, describe, and provide verification evidence of the methods and systems used to meet the requirement of § 437.57(a) to contain its reusable suborbital vehicle's instantaneous impact point within an operating area and outside any exclusion area. The description must include, at a minimum—
(1) Proof of physical limits on the ability of the reusable suborbital vehicle to leave the operating area; or
(2) Abort procedures and other safety measures derived from a system safety engineering process.
(b) An applicant must identify, describe, and provide verification evidence of the methods and systems used to meet the requirements of § 437.59 to conduct any key flight-safety event so that the reusable suborbital vehicle's instantaneous impact point, including its expected dispersions, is over unpopulated or sparsely populated areas, and to conduct each reusable suborbital vehicle flight so that the reentry impact point does not loiter over a populated area.
An applicant must demonstrate that each location for nominal landing or any contingency abort landing of the reusable suborbital vehicle, and each location for any nominal or contingency impact or landing of a component of that reusable suborbital vehicle, satisfies § 437.61.
A permittee must protect the public from adverse effects of hazardous operations and systems in preparing a reusable suborbital vehicle for flight at a launch site in the United States and returning the reusable suborbital vehicle and any support equipment to a safe condition after flight. At a minimum, a permittee must—
(a) During each permitted flight, a permittee must contain its reusable suborbital vehicle's instantaneous impact point within an operating area determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section and outside any exclusion area defined by the FAA in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) The FAA may prohibit a reusable suborbital vehicle's instantaneous impact point from traversing certain areas within an operating area by designating one or more areas as exclusion areas, if necessary to protect public health and safety, safety of property, or foreign policy or national security interests of the United States. An exclusion area may be confined to a specific phase of flight.
(a) A permittee must conduct any key flight-safety event so that the reusable
(b) A permittee must conduct each reusable suborbital vehicle flight so that the reentry impact point does not loiter over a populated area.
For a nominal or any contingency abort landing of a reusable suborbital vehicle, or for any nominal or contingency impact or landing of a component of that reusable suborbital vehicle, a permittee must use a location that—
(a) Before initiating flight, a permittee must confirm that all systems and operations necessary to ensure that safety measures derived from §§ 437.55, 437.57, 437.59, 437.61, 437.63, 437.65, 437.67, and 437.69 are within acceptable limits.
(b) During all phases of flight, a permittee must—
(1) Follow flight rules that ensure compliance with §§ 437.55, 437.57, 437.59, and 437.61; and
(2) Abort the flight if it would endanger the public.
(c) A permittee may not operate a reusable suborbital vehicle in a careless or reckless manner that would endanger any member of the public during any phase of flight.
(d) A permittee may not operate a reusable suborbital vehicle in areas designated in a Notice to Airmen under 14 CFR 91.137, 91.138, 91.141, or 91.145, unless authorized by:
(1) Air Traffic Control; or
(2) A Flight Standards Certificate of Waiver or Authorization.
(e) For any phase of flight where a permittee operates a reusable suborbital vehicle like an aircraft in the National Airspace System, a permittee must comply with the provisions of 14 CFR part 91 specified in an experimental permit issued under this part.
(a) The FAA will identify in the experimental permit the type of changes that the permittee may make to the reusable suborbital vehicle design without invalidating the permit.
No permittee may carry any property or human being for compensation or hire on a reusable suborbital vehicle.
A permittee may launch or reenter additional reusable suborbital vehicles of the same design under the permit after the FAA inspects each additional reusable suborbital vehicle.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
(1) Losses to third parties, excluding Government personnel and other launch or reentry participants' employees involved in licensed or permitted activities and neighboring operations personnel, that are reasonably expected to result from a licensed or permitted activity are those that have a probability of occurrence of no less than one in ten million.
(2) Losses to Government property and Government personnel, excluding government astronauts, involved in licensed or permitted activities and neighboring operations personnel that are reasonably expected to result from licensed or permitted activities are those that have a probability of occurrence of no less than one in one hundred thousand.
(1) Any person other than:
(i) The United States, any of its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity;
(ii) A licensee, permittee, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity;
(iii) A customer and its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity;
(iv) A member of a crew;
(v) A space flight participant; and
(vi) A government astronaut.
(2) Government personnel, as defined in this section and excluding government astronauts, are third parties.
(b) A licensee or permittee must obtain and maintain in effect a policy or policies of liability insurance, in an amount determined by the FAA under paragraph (c) of this section, that protects the following persons as additional insureds to the extent of their respective potential liabilities against covered claims by a third party for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a licensed or permitted activity:
(1) The licensee or permittee, its customer, and their respective contractors and subcontractors, and the employees of each, involved in a licensed or permitted activity;
(2) The United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in a licensed or permitted activity;
(3) Government personnel; and
(4) Space flight participants. This paragraph (b)(4) shall cease to be effective on September 30, 2025, unless public law modifies the limitation in section 50914 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code.
(c) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the United States, or
(d) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the United States or its contractors and subcontractors are involved, the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation and each space flight participant must enter into or have in place a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. The reciprocal waiver of claims must be in a form acceptable to the Administrator, such as those contained in advisory circular AC 440.17-1.
(e) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the United States or its contractors and subcontractors is involved, the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation and each crew member must enter into or have in place a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. The reciprocal waiver of claims must in a form acceptable to the Administrator, such as those contained in advisory circular AC 440.17-1.
(f) The licensee or permittee and each space flight participant must enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement under which each party waives and releases claims against the other party to the waiver, and agrees to assume financial responsibility for property damage it sustains and for bodily injury or property damage, and to hold harmless and indemnify each other from bodily injury or property damage, resulting from a licensed or permitted activity, regardless of fault. This paragraph (f) shall cease to be effective as of September 30, 2025, unless public law modifies the limitation in section 50914 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code.
(g) Any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify pursuant to this section does not apply to claims for bodily injury or property damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the parties to the reciprocal waiver of claims, the contractors and subcontractors of any of the parties to the reciprocal waiver of claims, and in the case of licensee or permittee and customers and the contractors and subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) For an unguided suborbital launch vehicle, the location of the vehicle's center of pressure in relation to its center of gravity for the entire flight profile.
(5)
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
This subpart establishes requirements for operators and applicants whose licensed or permitted operations involve government astronauts on board a vehicle.
This subpart applies to:
(a) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have a government astronaut with a safety-critical role on board a vehicle.
(b) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has a government astronaut with a safety-critical role on board a vehicle.
(a) An operator must ensure that each government astronaut with a safety-critical role is trained on—
(1) How to carry out their safety-critical role on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public; and
(2) Their role in nominal and non-nominal conditions, including abort scenarios and emergency operations, to the extent that performance of their role could impact public safety.
(b) An operator must ensure any government astronaut who has the capability to control, in real time, a launch or reentry vehicle's flight path during a phase of flight capable of endangering the public:
(1) Receives vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of flight capable of endangering the public and over which the government astronaut has the capability to control the vehicle by using one or more of the following:
(i) A method or device that simulates the flight;
(ii) An aircraft whose characteristics are similar to the vehicle or that has similar phases of flight to the vehicle;
(iii) Flight testing; or
(iv) An equivalent method of training approved by the FAA through the license process.
(2) Trains for each mode of control or propulsion, including any transition between modes, such that the government astronaut is able to control the vehicle.
(3) Possesses aeronautical knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to pilot and control the launch or reentry vehicle that will operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Aeronautical experience may include hours in flight, ratings, and training.
(c) With respect to training device fidelity, an operator must:
(1) Ensure that any government astronaut training device used to meet the training requirements realistically represents the vehicle's configuration and mission; or,
(2) Inform the government astronaut being trained of the differences between the training device and the vehicle's configuration and mission.
(d) An operator must update the government astronaut training to ensure that the training incorporates lessons learned from training and operational missions including—
(1) Providing traceability to revisions or changes; and
(2) Documenting the completed training for each government astronaut and maintaining the documentation for each active government astronaut.
(e) An operator must establish a recurrent training schedule and ensure that all training of government astronauts performing safety-critical roles is current before launch or reentry.
(f) For licensed missions supporting U.S. Government contracts, operators may meet the training requirements of this section through U.S. Government's contractual requirements.
(a) An operator must provide atmospheric conditions adequate to sustain life and consciousness for all inhabited areas within a vehicle that house a government astronaut. The operator must monitor and control the following atmospheric conditions in the inhabited areas or demonstrate through the license or permit process that an alternate means provides an equivalent level of safety—
(1) Composition of the atmosphere, which includes oxygen and carbon dioxide, and any revitalization;
(2) Pressure, temperature and humidity;
(3) Contaminants that include particulates and any harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases, or vapors; and
(4) Ventilation and circulation.
(b) An operator must provide an adequate redundant or secondary oxygen supply for any government astronaut with a safety-critical role.
(c) An operator must provide a redundant means of preventing cabin depressurization; or prevent incapacitation of any government astronaut with a safety-critical role in the event of loss of cabin pressure.
This subpart establishes requirements for operators and applicants whose licensed or permitted operations involve government astronauts on board a vehicle without a safety-critical role.
This subpart applies to:
(a) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have a government astronaut without a safety-critical role on board a vehicle.
(b) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has a government astronaut without a safety-critical role on board a vehicle.
An operator must ensure that each government astronaut without a safety-critical role is trained on how to respond to emergency situations, including smoke, fire, loss of cabin pressure, and emergency exit.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 51 U.S.C. 509 in Washington, DC.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe the spreads component of the interest assumption under the asset allocation regulation for plans with valuation dates of October 31, 2024-January 30, 2025. These interest assumptions are used for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans and for other purposes.
Effective October 31, 2024.
Monica O'Donnell (
PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including an interest assumption—for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumption is also posted on PBGC's website (
PBGC uses the interest assumption in § 4044.54 to determine the present value of annuities in an involuntary or distress termination of a single-employer plan under the asset allocation regulation. The assumptions in part 4044 of PBGC's regulations are also used in other situations where it is appropriate for liabilities to align with private sector group annuity prices. For example, PBGC's regulations on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) and Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) provide that these assumptions are used to value liabilities for purposes of determining withdrawn employers' reallocation liability in the event of a mass withdrawal from a multiemployer plan. Multiemployer plans that receive special financial assistance under the regulation on Special Financial Assistance by PBGC (29 CFR part 4262) must, as a condition of receiving special financial assistance, use the interest assumption to determine withdrawal liability for a prescribed period. Additionally, plan sponsors are required to use some, or all of these assumptions for specified purposes (
On June 6, 2024, PBGC issued a final rule at 89 FR 48291 that changes the structure of the interest assumption for valuation dates on or after July 31, 2024, from the select and ultimate approach to
This rule amends the regulation to specify the spreads used to determine the 4044 yield curve as of the last days of October, November, and December of 2024, (
PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. PBGC routinely updates the spreads component of the interest assumption in the asset allocation regulation so that the 4044 yield curve may be determined as soon as the underlying bond yield curves become available. These amendments are merely technical; they ensure that use of PBGC's interest assumption continues to yield liabilities in line with group annuity prices. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this rule expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
(e) * * *
Issued in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters within the Captain of the Port Sector Houston-Galveston (COTP) zone to be enforced in the event of severe weather or natural and other disasters in southeast Texas. This action is necessary for the safety of life on these navigable waters within the COTP zone.
This rule is effective without actual notice from September 19, 2024 through 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2024. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 11, 2024 until September 19, 2024.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer Marine Science Technician Anthony W. Booth, Sector Houston-Galveston Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 713-398-5823, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fast-moving formation of Tropical Storm Francine. The Captain of the Port, Sector Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined reduced or restricted visibility and storm force winds, which may occur during tropical storms, hurricanes and other disasters, constitutes a safety concern for persons and vessels within the COTP zone during the nationally published hurricane season extending through November 30, 2024. The COTP is establishing a temporary safety zone to provide for the safety of life during and subsequent to such storms or incidents. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by September 11, 2024 in response to Tropical Storm Francine
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the lack of Aids to Navigation and unknown waterway conditions can pose a hazard to transiting vessels due to the effects of Tropical Storm Francine and future severe weather, natural and other disasters. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the temporary safety zone while the aids to navigation are being repaired and the waterway is being surveyed.
The temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the COTP zone for the ports of Houston, Galveston, Freeport, Texas City and portions of the GIWW between MM-319.5 and MM-442. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters until 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2024 as needed by COTP Houston-Galveston. During enforcement, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative when the zone is activated due to severe weather response.
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, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This action involves a temporary safety zone to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by damaged navigational aids and silting resulting from Tropical Storm Francine.
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 temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because commercial vessels will still have availability to transit the channel but in a controlled and safe manner to facilitate the safe flow of vessel traffic.
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 will 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,
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 temporary safety zone facilitating the safety and security of the Houston-Galveston COTP zone's marine transportation system operations, including but not limited to vessel traffic and facility operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be 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
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(d)
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education.
Final waiver and extension of the project period.
The Department of Education (Department) waives the requirements in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations that generally prohibit project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The final waiver and extension is intended to enable one project under Assistance Listing Number 84.407C to receive funding for an additional period, not to exceed September 30, 2025.
This final waiver and extension of the project period is effective September 19, 2024.
Shedita Alston, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5C-131, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202)453-7090. 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.
We published a proposed waiver and extension in the
We are extending the project period for the PPSID-NTAD FY 2021 grantee in order to align and coordinate the funding cycle of the PPSID-NTAD program with the TPSID-CC program grant authorized under title VII, part D, subpart 2 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1140f
For this reason, the Secretary is waiving the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The waiver allows the Department to issue a one-time FY 2024 continuation award to the current PPSID-NTAD program grantee estimated as follows:
Any activities carried out during the year of this continuation award must be consistent with the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the FY 2021 competition.
Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) contains an exception to the requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that requires publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date for a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. Accordingly, the Department has elected to make this final Waiver and Extension effective on September 19, 2024.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only small entities that will be affected by the final waiver and extension of the project period is the current grantee and any other potential applicants.
The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension will not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project period would impose minimal compliance costs to extend the existing project, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
This final waiver and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.
You may also access Department documents published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Washoe County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of particulate matter (PM) from woodburning devices. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective October 21, 2024.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0405. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 947-4125; email:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On June 14, 2024 (89 FR 50543), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the Nevada SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received three comments. Two of the comments were anonymous and supported the proposed action. The third comment discussed the environmental effects of growing cannabis. The EPA has determined that this comment fails to raise issues germane to the proposed revisions to DBOH Rule 040.051, which regulates emissions of PM from wood-burning devices. Therefore, we have determined that none of the submitted comments necessitate a specific response.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving this rule into the Nevada SIP. The February 24, 2022 version of Rule 040.051 will replace the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of DBOH Rule 040.051, Wood-Burning Devices revised on February 24, 2022, which regulates PM emissions from woodburning devices. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting the erroneous incorporation of cross-references into the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) using the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) error correction provision. EPA has determined that portions of its May 23, 2019, July 17, 2020, and March 1, 2021, final SIP rulemaking actions were in error and that it is appropriate to correct those actions by removing specific cross-references in the permitting rules from the SIP.
This rule is effective October 21, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0454. Additional supporting materials associated with this final action are included in Docket Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0638 and EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0186. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Steve Scofield, Multi-Air Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at
On May 23, 2019, July 17, 2020, and March 1, 2021,
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA to revise a State's SIP when it “determines that [its] action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof) . . . was in error.” Once EPA has made the determination that it erred, it “may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State.”
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 28, 2024 (89 FR 46049), EPA proposed to correct the erroneous incorporation of certain cross-references into 15A NCAC 02Q Section .0101,
EPA received one comment from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)'s Division of Air Quality (DAQ), regarding the May 28, 2024, NPRM. The comment is provided in the docket for this final action. EPA has summarized and responded to the comment below.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 15A NCAC Section 02Q Rule .0101,
Pursuant to the error correction provision of section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing the removal of portions of 15A NCAC Section 02Q .0101,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the State of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) related to a Source-specific SIP (SSSIP) revision for the Sylvamo Ticonderoga Mill (formerly known as International Paper), located at 568 Shore Airport Rd., Ticonderoga, New York (the Facility). The control options in this SSSIP revision implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxide (NO
This final rule is effective on October 21, 2024.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2023-0237. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Stephanie Lin, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, 212-637-3711, or by email at
For additional information on regulatory background and the EPA's technical findings relating to the Facility RACT, the reader can refer to the Technical Support Document (TSD) that is contained in the EPA docket assigned to this
This action relates to a SSSIP revision that concerns the Facility which is a fully integrated pulp and paper manufacturer of printing papers. The Facility processes hardwood and softwood logs and chips using the kraft pulping process and produces approximately 900 tons per day of uncoated free sheet paper for commercial printing. Converted kraft pulp is washed, bleached, and prepared for finishing by two paper machines. The sources at issue in this action are the Facility's one power boiler, one lime kiln, and one recovery furnace. NYSDEC RACT regulations establish presumptive RACT requirements for these sources in (1) 6 NYCRR part 227, “Stationary Combustion Installations,” subpart 227-2, “Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen,” last approved by the EPA on July 12, 2013,
This SSSIP revision was submitted by NYSDEC on November 23, 2022, and it replaces and supersedes the SSSIPs that were submitted by the State on September 16, 2008, and August 30, 2010. On May 23, 2024, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to approve a SSSIP revision to address NO
The EPA is determining through this final action that the NO
The specific details for how the NO
The State of New York did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SSSIP submittal. The EPA performed an
The Report addresses a 1-mile ring centered at the Facility. All thirteen EJ Screen environmental indexes are evaluated in the Report: (1) Particulate matter; (2) ozone; (3) diesel particulate matter; (4) air toxics cancer risks; (5) air toxics respiratory health index; (6) toxics releases to air; (7) traffic proximity; (8) lead paint; (9) superfund proximity; (10) risk management plan (RMP) facility proximity; (11) hazardous waste proximity; (12) underground storage tanks; and (13) wastewater discharge. Specific background and source information on these indexes and environmental indicators can be found in the EPA's “EJScreen Technical Documentation for Version 2.2.”
The results of the EPA's environmental justice analysis indicated that the population within a 1-mile radius of the Facility was below the 80th percentile for all National EJ Indexes and Supplemental Indexes. Refer to docket assigned to this
The EPA expects that finalizing this action is unlikely to result in potential disproportionate health, environmental, and economic impacts on disadvantaged communities in the area surrounding the Facility. This analysis was done solely for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public and is not a basis for the action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA and on bases independent of EJ.
The EPA received two public comments during the 30-day public comment period of the EPA's proposed approval of New York's SIP revision. The comments were not relevant to the action. The specific comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2023-0237 on the
Regarding one commenter, the EPA appreciates the commenter's support of keeping NY air clean but notes that this is not relevant to this action.
Regarding another commenter, the EPA appreciates the commenter's description of cannabis plants releasing BVOCs but notes that this is not relevant to this action.
Based on a thorough RBLC review of similar sources, information provided by NYSDEC, and an analysis of this Source-specific SIP revision, the EPA is approving Sylvamo Ticonderoga Mill's operation under NYSDEC approved NO
Specifically, the EPA is approving the following limits and associated requirements as implementing RACT: (1) For the emission unit P-OWERH, very large power boiler, a limit of 0.23 lb NO
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference revisions to Sylvamo Ticonderoga Mill title V operating permit conditions 52, 78, and 85 as described in section I. of this preamble. These documents are available in the docket of this rulemaking through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.” resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SSSIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the Central Aleutian district (CAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2024 total allowable catch (TAC) of Atka mackerel in the CAI allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 16, 2024, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2024.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the BSAI 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 subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2024 TAC of Atka mackerel, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 1,489 metric tons by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
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 closure of the Atka mackerel directed fishing in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 13, 2024.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2024 “other rockfish” total allowable catch (TAC) in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 16, 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 subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
The 2024 “other rockfish” TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 380 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2024 “other rockfish” TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea 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 “other rockfish” species in the Aleutian Islands subarea 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 prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2024 total allowable catch of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 16, 2024, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2024.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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 subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
The 2024 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,787 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2024 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,687 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
While this closure is in effect, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
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 closure of directed fishing of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 13, 2024.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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
Rural Housing Service, Agriculture Department (USDA).
Proposed rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency), a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), proposes to amend the current Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) regulation to change the requirements for the length of time a prior Agency loss is considered significant derogatory credit and address seasoning requirements and payment performance for refinance transactions. This proposed rule intends to establish a seven-year time frame for the applicant to re-establish credit after a prior loss claim with the Agency before that loss would no longer be considered significant derogatory credit. This proposed rule also intends to clarify the seasoning requirements and expected payment history requirements for all three refinance submission types within the SFHGLP and identify when applicants are eligible to refinance their current mortgage.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 18, 2024.
Comments may be submitted electronically, only by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found by going to
Laurie Mohr, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0784, Room 2250, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0784. Telephone: (314) 679-6917; or email:
SFHGLP is authorized at Section 502(h) of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)) and implemented by 7 CFR part 3555.
RHS offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. RHS offers loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single and multi-family housing, childcare centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, housing for farm laborers and much more. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, State and Federal Government agencies, and local communities.
Under the authority of the Housing Act of 1949, (42 U.S.C. 1471
This program helps lenders work with low- and moderate-income households living in rural areas to make homeownership a reality. Providing affordable homeownership opportunities promotes prosperity, which in turn creates thriving communities and improves the quality of life in rural areas.
Currently, an applicant with an indicator of significant derogatory credit requires a lender to conduct further review and to document that review during the underwriting process. As specified in 7 CFR 3555,151(i)(3)(iv), one indicator of significant derogatory credit is a previous Agency loan made to the applicant that resulted in a loss to the Government. A loss claim on a SFHGLP or a Single Family Housing Direct Loan results in a loss to the federal government. Therefore, an applicant with a previous loss claim is considered to have an indicator of significant derogatory credit.
Applicants obtaining a guarantee through the SFHGLP must obtain a clear Credit Alert Verification Reporting System (CAIVRS) number, which checks for prior loss claims by reviewing any delinquent and/or defaulted claims that were paid on the applicant's behalf. Currently, regardless of the time passed since a loss to the
This proposed rule intends to amend 7 CFR 3555.151(i)(3)(iv) to establish a time limit for how long a previous Agency loss will be considered significant derogatory credit. The Agency proposes that this time limit be seven years. This would mean that any loss claim that is older than seven years old would no longer be considered significant derogatory credit for an applicant applying for a new loan using the SFHGLP.
This proposed rule would better align the waiting period with those used by similar programs. The Veterans Administration (VA) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, have shorter waiting periods before applicants are eligible to participate in their mortgage loan programs after having a foreclosure. VA allows applicants to apply for a mortgage as early as two years after a previous foreclosure, with FHA having a three-year waiting period. While a previous loss claim is a significant event when it occurs, applicants can establish positive repayment ability over time through various means, such as building credit; obtaining better paying jobs; demonstrating growth of liquid assets; and positioning themselves to be eligible for homeownership through the SFHGLP. Currently, 7 CFR 3555.151(i)(3) requires that for manually underwritten loans, lenders must submit documentation of the credit qualification decision. Lenders use credit scores to manually underwrite loan mortgage requests and are required to validate the credit scores utilized in the underwriting determination. Indicators of significant derogatory credit require further review and documentation of that review and a previous Agency loan that resulted in a loss to the government is one item that would require this type of more thorough underwriting review and documentation.
When the loan file becomes a manually underwritten loan, the lender is required to submit a fully documented file for the Agency to review. Some of the guidelines for a manually underwritten file are more stringent and require the lender to provide acceptable debt ratio waivers and compensating factors to support these waivers, as well as require credit score validations, credit exceptions, and a verification of rent. In cases where applicants have re-established credit, obtained a stable and dependable earning stream, and generated savings it seems prudent to add a time frame for when the Agency considers these previous loss claims to no longer be considered significant derogatory credit.
The Agency proposes a seven-year period for consideration of previous loss claims to be considered significant derogatory credit.
To reach this figure of seven-years, the Agency considered that many states utilize a seven-year statute of limitation for creditor claims. The Agency also considered provisions in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681
When evaluating the overall applicants' credit worthiness, lenders consider a variety of factors, including the applicant's income, assets, credit rating, and proposed collateral.
The Agency determined that seven-years is sufficient time for an improvement in these factors. For example, in seven years, an applicant may have significantly increased their income by obtaining a job promotions, raise, completing a degree, learning a new trade, obtaining a new skill, credential, or similar development. to validate circumstances have changed. Having a greater potential repayment ability, or increased capacity, to make the loan payments for the 30-year term is important in the applicants' underwriting analysis.
The Agency also determined that seven years is sufficient time for the applicant to further develop their financial state, by obtaining additional assets and reducing their liabilities. Comparing their assets to liabilities helps determine if the applicant can sustain their current financial situation and, more importantly, if a hardship arose, whether they have sufficient reserves to ensure continued repayment. In conjunction with having time to obtain a better job, this would allow additional time for the applicant to increase their savings. In the seven-year time frame, the applicant may be eligible to receive matching funds by the employer in their 401K or 457 plan, or possibly receive increased wages enabling them to put more away in savings. This would be important for the cash assets and reserves available in the applicants' underwriting analysis.
The last item the Agency considered in determining the seven-year period was credit. A time frame had to be established that allowed the applicant time to repair their credit. In a seven-year time frame the applicant would have time to repair or rebuild their credit score, pay down or pay off debts, and improve their overall credit situation, and credit reporting companies would no longer report many indicators of derogatory credit seven years after their occurrence. By having sufficient time to re-establish credit, the applicants can show enhanced repayment ability to the potential lender. The Agency believes that by basing the seven-year time frame on both regulatory credit reporting rules and a fair time frame for the applicants to be able to re-establish themselves, the applicants can gain better employment, obtain more wealth, and eradicate a previously tarnished credit report in the seven years. Thus, using a seven-year time frame to consider a prior loss claim to be significant derogatory credit is well supported.
There are three refinance options available to borrowers through SFHGLP—streamlined, non-streamlined, and streamline-assist.
Currently, 7 CFR part 3555 does not have a seasoning requirement for streamlined or non-streamlined refinance loans. The “seasoning” period for a mortgage loan refers to the amount of time the applicants have had their mortgage loan and made payments on the debt to their servicer. This proposed rule intends to modify the existing seasoning requirements for streamlined or non-streamlined refinance loans.
The streamlined-assist refinance loan currently has a 12-month seasoning requirement, which this proposed rule would modify to a six-month seasoning requirement. Other Federal Agencies offering similar programs, both requiring limited borrower credit and underwriting documentation, such as FHA and VA, allow streamline refinance transactions after a six-month time span. This proposed rule would bring consistency with these Agencies by permitting the current loan to only be seasoned six months prior to being eligible for a refinance.
The proposed rule would amend § 3555.101(d)(3)(i) to clarify there is no seasoning requirement for the streamlined or non-streamlined refinance loans. Additionally, the current 12-month seasoning requirement for streamlined-assist loans would be modified to a six-month seasoning requirement. The revision would also clarify the mortgage payment history must not reflect any
This proposal intends to provide our low- to moderate-income applicants the ability to take advantage of a more favorable mortgage interest rate earlier, promoting repayment ability, and allowing them more funds available to save for future expenditures or make home improvements.
The proposed rule would require all payments on the current mortgage loan to be made on time for the last 180 days prior to loan application for all three refinance types (streamlined, non-streamlined, and streamlined assist). No delinquencies greater than 30 days may occur in that period. These proposed guidelines mirror other Federal Agency guidelines, as payments are required to be paid on time for six consecutive months. Since the streamlined and non-streamlined refinance options do not require a seasoning period, when the borrowers' current mortgage account has not been open 180 days prior to the refinance loan application, no defaults can be present since the current mortgage account was originated.
The proposed rule also intends to update 7 CFR 3555.101(d)(3)(iii) by clarifying that existing borrowers seeking to refinance with the streamlined, non-streamlined, and streamlined-assist products must maintain a current mortgage account for 180 days prior to loan application. It will also further explain if borrowers are using the streamlined or non-streamlined refinance options and the mortgage account has not been open 180 days prior to loan application, no defaults can be present since the mortgage account was opened.
Finally, the proposed rule would amend 7 CFR 3555.101(d)(3)(vi) to delete duplicate information already contained within other provisions of subsection (d). The paragraph will instead state: Documentation, costs, underwriting, and servicing requirements of subparts D, E, and F of this part apply to refinancing, unless otherwise provided by the Agency.
Stakeholder input is vital to ensure the proposed changes in the proposed rule would support the Agency's mission, while ensuring that new regulations and policies are reasonable and do not overly burden the Agency's lenders and their customers. Comments must be submitted on or before November 18, 2024 and may be submitted electronically by going to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
RHS is proposing to make the following changes to 7 CFR 3555:
(1) The Agency is proposing to amend 7 CFR 3555.101(d)(3)(i)(A) to state that lenders may offer a streamlined refinance for existing Section 502 Guarantee loans, which does not require a new appraisal. The lender will pay off the balance of the existing Section 502 Guaranteed loan. There is no seasoning requirement for the current mortgage account being refinanced. The borrower must have no delinquencies greater than 30 days on the mortgage account being refinanced for 180 days prior to loan application. If the current mortgage loan is not 180 days mature at loan application, the borrower cannot have any delinquencies greater than 30 days since the mortgage loan was originated.
(2) The Agency also proposes to update § 3555.101(d)(3)(i)(B) to allow lenders to offer non-streamlined refinancing for existing Section 502 Guaranteed or Direct loans, which requires a new and current market value appraisal. The amount of the new loan must be supported by sufficient equity in the property determined by an appraisal. The appraised value may be exceeded by the amount of up-front guarantee fee financed, if any, when using the non-streamlined option. There is no seasoning requirement for the current mortgage account being refinanced. The borrower must have no delinquencies greater than 30 days on the mortgage account being refinanced for 180 days prior to loan application. If the current mortgage loan is not 180 days mature at loan application; the borrower cannot have any delinquencies greater than 30 days since the mortgage loan was originated.
(3) The Agency is also proposing to update § 3555.101(d)(3)(i)(C) to make clear that a streamlined-assist refinance loan is a special refinance option available to existing Section 502 Direct and Guaranteed loan borrowers. There are no debt-to-income calculation requirements, no credit report requirements, no property inspection requirements, and no loan-to-value requirements. There is no appraisal requirement, with the exception of Section 502 Direct loan borrowers who have received a subsidy. The existing loan must have closed six months prior to loan application. Applicants must meet the income eligibility requirements of § 3555.151(a) and must not have had any delinquencies greater than 30 days on their mortgage account being refinanced 180 days prior to loan application.
(4) The proposed rule intends to update 7 CFR 3555.101(d)(3)(iii) to clarify existing borrowers seeking to refinance with the streamlined, non-streamlined, and the streamlined-assist products must maintain a current mortgage account for 180 days prior to loan application. It will also stipulate if borrowers are using the streamlined or non-streamlined refinance options and the mortgage account has not been open 180 days prior to loan application, no defaults can be present since the mortgage account was opened.
(5) The proposed rule would amend 7 CFR 3555.101(d)(3)(vi) to delete text that is already provided in section (d) of 7 CFR 3555. The paragraph will state: Documentation, costs, and underwriting requirements of subparts D, E, and F of this part apply to refinances, unless otherwise provided by the Agency.
(6) The Agency intends to revise 7 CFR 3555.151(i)(3)(iv) to specify a previous Agency loan that resulted in a loss to the Government within the last seven years is considered significant derogatory credit.
This program is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” as implemented under USDA's regulations at 2 CFR 415, subpart C.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “non-significant regulatory action,”
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, a Regulatory Impact Analysis was not completed.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Except where specified, all state and local laws and regulations that are in direct conflict with this rule will be preempted. Federal funds carry federal requirements. No person is required to apply for funding under SFHGLP, but if they do apply and are selected for funding, they must comply with the requirements applicable to the federal program funds. This rule is not retroactive. It will not affect agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted.
The policies contained in this proposed rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Consultation is also required for any regulation that preempts Tribal law or that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments and that is not required by statute. The Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require formal Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Rural Housing Service will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effect of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million, or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, this final rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970 (“Environmental Policies and Procedures”). The Agency has determined that i) this action meets the criteria established in 7 CFR 1970.53(f); ii) no extraordinary circumstances exist; and iii) the action is not “connected” to other actions with potentially significant impacts, is not considered a “cumulative action” and is not precluded by 40 CFR 1506.1. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the action does not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
RD has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, gender identity (including gender expression), genetic information, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, parental status, veteran status, religion, reprisal and/or resulting from all or a part of an individual's income being derived from any public assistance program. This proposed rule is within a Guarantee-based program. Guarantees are not covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, as amended, when the Federal assistance does not include insurance or interest credit loans. Lenders must comply with other applicable Federal laws, including Equal Employment Opportunities, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Guaranteed loans that involve the construction of or addition to facilities that accommodate the public must comply with the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard. The borrower and lender are responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements.
The program affected by this proposed rule is listed in the Assistance Listing (AL) Number 10.410, Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans (Section 502 Rural Housing Loans).
This proposed rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0575-0179 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Rural Development is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering 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.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Conflicts of interest, Credit, Environmental impact statements, Fair housing, Flood insurance, Grant programs—housing and community development, home improvement, Housing, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Agency is proposing to amend 7 CFR part 3555 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 1471
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Lenders may offer streamlined refinancing for existing Section 502 Guaranteed loans, which does not require a new appraisal. The lender will pay off the balance of the existing Section 502 Guaranteed loan. There is no seasoning requirement for the current mortgage account being refinanced. The borrower must have no delinquencies greater than 30 days on the mortgage account being refinanced for 180 days prior to loan application. If the current mortgage loan is not 180 days mature at loan application, the borrower cannot have any delinquencies greater than 30 days since the mortgage loan was originated.
(B) Lenders may offer non-streamlined refinancing for existing Section 502 Guaranteed or Direct loans, which requires a new and current market value appraisal. The amount of the new loan must be supported by sufficient equity in the property as determined by an appraisal. The appraised value may be exceeded by the amount of up-front guarantee fee financed, if any, when using the non-streamlined option. There is no seasoning requirement for the current mortgage account being refinanced. The borrower must have no delinquencies greater than 30 days on the mortgage account being refinanced for 180 days prior to loan application. If the current mortgage loan is not 180 days mature at loan application, the borrower cannot have any delinquencies greater than 30 days since the mortgage loan was originated.
(C) A streamlined-assist refinance loan is a special refinance option available to existing Section 502 Direct and Guaranteed loan borrowers. There are no debt-to-income calculation requirements, no credit report requirements, no property inspection requirements, and no loan-to-value requirements. There is no appraisal requirement, with the exception of Section 502 Direct loan borrowers who have received a subsidy. The existing loan must have closed six months prior to loan application. Applicants must meet the income eligibility requirements of § 3555.151(a) and must not have had any delinquencies greater than 30 days on their mortgage account being refinanced 180 days prior to loan application.
(iii) Existing borrowers seeking to refinance using the streamlined, non-streamlined, or the streamlined-assist refinance options must have demonstrated their ability to meet payment demands by maintaining a current mortgage account for 180 days prior to loan application. However, if the borrower is using either the streamlined or non-streamlined refinance option and their mortgage account being refinanced has not been opened for 180 days prior to loan application, no defaults must have occurred since the mortgage account was opened.
(vi) Documentation, costs, and underwriting requirements of subparts D, E, and F of this part apply to refinances, unless otherwise provided by the Agency.
(i) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) A previous Agency loan that resulted in any loss to the Government within the last seven years.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking from Alan Blind and Roger Rapoport, dated July 1, 2024, requesting that the NRC revise its regulations to include a Commission-approved process for returning a decommissioning plant to operational status. The petition was docketed by the NRC on July 23, 2024, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-125. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-50-125 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comment on this petition at this time.
Submit comments by December 3, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
•
You can read a plain language description of this petition for rulemaking at
Soly Soto Lugo, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7528, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0135 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The petition for rulemaking (PRM) was filed by Alan Blind and Roger Rapoport. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted additional signatures of community members near the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) in support of the petition. The PRM requests that the NRC revise its regulations at 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” to include a Commission-approved process for returning a decommissioning plant to operational status. The NRC understands the petition, based on the context and references within, to mean plants currently in the decommissioning process rather than fully decommissioned plants and to be requesting a revision of the part 50 regulations rather than part 52 regulations. The petition may be found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML24205A122.
The petition states that the NRC staff lack a specific NRC Commission-approved and codified process for licensing, inspecting, and approving the return to service of a power reactor that has entered decommissioning. The petitioner requests that the NRC conduct rulemaking to include a codified process for returning a decommissioning plant to operational status. The petitioner points to the ongoing Palisades proceedings as examples for where new, codified processes are needed.
The petition states that the NRC received a proposal for a regulatory path to the reauthorization of power operations at the Palisades plant using the current regulatory framework. The petition also states that the proposed framework is based on a denial of PRM-50-117, “Criteria to Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations” (86 FR 24362), which the petitioner
The petitioner did not provide proposed regulatory language but rather proposed elements that should be included in the rulemaking. These elements include decommissioning status and configuration verification, aging management, quality assurance during restart and operations, equipment maintenance, personnel qualifications, license expirations, hearing process, appropriate licensing basis, startup testing, and NRC catchup review, as well as completion of past, open commitments.
In addition, the petitioner requests that the NRC revise its regulations to require the NRC to review all materials associated with license transfers to new entities for the purpose of completion of decommissioning. The petitioner also requests that the NRC revise its regulations to require that entities previously approved primarily for decommissioning activities submit a new license transfer application in accordance with 10 CFR 50.80, “Transfer of licenses,” before that entity can be qualified to engage in activities associated with power operations. The petitioner contends that this requirement would ensure that the NRC assesses the qualifications of the requesting entity based on evidence of its operational capabilities and not evidence of its decommissioning qualifications.
Only public comments responsive to PRM-50-125 regarding the request that the NRC revise its regulations to include a Commission-approved process for returning a decommissioning plant to an operational status will be considered. Note that this is a separate process from the ongoing NRC consideration of requested actions related to the potential restart of the Palisades Nuclear Plant, which has separate Docket IDs, and can be found at NRC-2024-0128 and NRC-2024-0130.
The NRC has determined that the petition meets the sufficiency requirements for docketing a PRM under 10 CFR 2.803, “Petition for rulemaking-NRC action.” The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-50-125 and any comments received in response to this comment request to determine whether these issues should be considered in rulemaking. While the petition is being evaluated, the NRC staff will continue to follow existing regulations for its regulatory activities.
The public can monitor further action on the rulemaking that will address this petition by searching Docket ID NRC-2024-0135 on the Federal rulemaking website,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Clarification to proposed rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) publishes this document to clarify the scope of a proposed rule published on August 23, 2024. The proposed rule is intended to clarify and improve policies implemented as part of a comprehensive revision to the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program regulations in 2019; to propose several changes to SBA's size and 8(a) Business Development (BD) regulations, and technical changes to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) and Veteran Small Business Certification (VetCert) programs; and to move program-specific recertification requirements to a new section that would cover all size and status recertification requirements. The proposed rule does not address the exclusion from affiliation available to mentor-protégé joint ventures or the applicability of the HUBZone price evaluation preference to HUBZone joint ventures formed under the Mentor-Protégé Program. Those issues are outside the scope of the proposed rule.
Comments on the proposed rule published at 89 FR 68274 (Aug. 23, 2024) must be received on or before October 7, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. SBA-2024-0007 or RIN 3245-AH68, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Laura Maas, Deputy Director, Office of HUBZone,
SBA issued a proposed rule concerning the HUBZone program regulations under RIN 3245-AH68. 89 FR 68274 (Aug. 23, 2024). The proposed rule is intended to clarify and improve several regulatory provisions, including those governing HUBZone contract eligibility. The proposed rule would also make several changes to SBA's size and 8(a) Business Development (BD) program regulations. In particular, the rulemaking would consolidate and redesignate the separate recertification requirements for SBA's size, 8(a) BD, HUBZone, Woman-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business programs to a new section to reduce confusion and to ensure consistent application of the size and status recertification requirements.
Pursuant to the Agency's Tribal Consultation Policy, SBA consults with Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANC), and other Native communities prior to implementing regulatory or policy changes with a direct and substantial effect on their participation in the HUBZone and 8(a) BD programs. SBA recognizes that regular communication and collaboration between the SBA and its Tribal and ANC stakeholders are vital to improving their program participation experience and maximizing the benefits to Native American communities, even where SBA is not actively considering program policy changes. SBA therefore makes efforts to consult Native communities periodically to obtain input on how the SBA could improve its programs. To these ends, SBA announced that it was holding Tribal consultations concerning the proposed rule and the following two matters. 89 FR 59010 (July 22, 2024).
First, the proposed rule explained that SBA was seeking input on how best to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 14112, Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations To Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination, which directed agencies to identify and execute policy reforms designed to promote accessible, equitable, and flexible administration of Federal funding and support programs for Tribal Nations to better live up to the Federal Government's trust responsibilities and help address the needs of all Tribal Nations. The Agency requested comments on several potential opportunities for reform as well as one change SBA had already made to address the business and economic development needs of Tribal Nations.
Second, SBA requested comments on prospective policy changes addressing joint venture participation in SBA programs. Specifically, SBA requested input on the perception that mentor-protégé joint ventures are winning an inordinate number of orders issued under small business multiple award contracts and suggestions on how to incentivize a more equitable marketplace for individual small businesses who compete against mentor-protégé joint ventures for multiple award, small business contracts. SBA also sought comments on the perception that small businesses often enter joint ventures to seek multiple award contract awards because procuring agency past performance and experience requirements make it difficult for many small businesses to qualify for the awards individually. SBA explained it was considering whether to propose eliminating the exception to affiliation between an SBA-approved mentor and its protégé for multiple award contracts to address this concern. In the alternative, the Agency might consider proposing a rule that would allow an exclusion from affiliation for a joint venture between a protégé firm and its mentor only for contracts or orders that do not exceed five years. Lastly, the proposed rule stated SBA was considering steps to eliminate the applicability of the HUBZone price evaluation preference to HUBZone joint ventures formed under the Mentor-Protégé Program.
This document clarifies that the above-referenced possible prospective policy change to eliminate or restrict the exclusion from affiliation available to mentor-protégé joint ventures is outside the scope of the proposed rule published on August 23, 2024. Additionally, SBA is not addressing the applicability of the HUBZone price evaluation preference to HUBZone joint ventures formed under the Mentor-Protégé Program as part of this proposed rule. To the extent SBA decides to propose amendments to its mentor-protégé joint venture policies beyond those outlined in the rulemaking published on August 23, 2024, the Agency would do so through a separate proposed notice and comment rulemaking action in which all interested SBA stakeholders may participate.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, PA-28-180, PA-28S-160, PA-28S-180, PA-28-236, PA-28-201T, PA-32-300, PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, PA-32RT-300T, PA-32-301FT, PA-32-301XTC, PA-32R-301 (HP), PA-32R-301 (SP), PA-32R-301T, PA-32-301, and PA-32-301T airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in a visually inaccessible area of the lower main wing spar cap and additional reports of fatigue cracking in the wing spars of airplanes that share common type design features. This proposed AD would require reviewing airplane maintenance records to determine if an eddy current inspection of the lower main wing spar bolt holes was done and, depending on the result, doing a one-time eddy current inspection of the lower wing spar bolt holes for crack(s), and replacing any cracked main wing spar. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 4, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Piper material identified in this proposed AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; phone: (772) 567-4361; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5507; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2020-26-16, Amendment 39-21371 (86 FR 3769, January 15, 2021) (AD 2020-26-16), for certain Piper Model PA-28-151, PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-32-260, PA-32-300, PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT-300T airplanes. AD 2020-26-16 was prompted by an accident involving wing separation on a Piper Model PA-28R-201 airplane. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) revealed a fatigue crack in a visually inaccessible area of the lower main wing spar cap. The applicability of the NPRM for AD 2020-26-16 included additional Piper model airplanes with similar main wing spar structures as the Model PA-28R-201. Based on airplane usage history, the FAA determined that only those airplanes with a higher risk for fatigue cracks (airplanes with a significant history of operation in flight training or other high-load environments) should be subject to the inspection requirements proposed in that NPRM.
AD 2020-26-16 requires calculating the factored service hours for each main wing spar to determine when an inspection is required, inspecting the lower main wing spar bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any cracked main wing spar. The agency issued AD 2020-26-16 to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes.
The preamble to AD 2020-26-16 explains that the FAA considers the requirements “interim action” and was considering further rulemaking. The FAA has now determined that further rulemaking is necessary, and this proposed AD and a separate proposed rulemaking action (Docket No. FAA-2024-2142) that would supersede AD 2020-26-16 follows from that determination. Similar to AD 2020-26-16, this proposed AD is also considered to be an interim action that would determine the need for additional actions in the fleet addressed currently. The FAA evaluated the inspection reports submitted by operators as required by AD 2020-26-16 and determined that wing spars from additional Piper airplane models should be inspected.
Since the FAA issued AD 2020-26-16, the FAA has analyzed the accident history of the airplanes affected by AD 2020-26-16 and other Piper airplanes operated in a similar fashion. The following paragraphs communicate the FAA's findings on this subject.
Fatigue cracking was present in the main wing spars of Piper Model PA-28-181, Model PA-28R-201, and Model PA-28-161 airplanes involved in the following accidents. The following NTSB reports are related to this issue and can be found on
• NTSB Accident Number FTW87FA088: March 30, 1987—Marlin, TX—Piper Model PA-28-181—7,490 hours time-in-service (TIS). This accident was determined to have been caused by fatigue cracking in the outboard bolt holes of the main wing spar. This airplane's primary usage was a “Pipeline Patrol” mission.
• NTSB Accident Number NYC93FA140: August 2, 1993—Provincetown, MA—Piper Model PA-28-181—11,683 hours TIS. This accident was determined to have been caused by structural overloading related to weather, but fatigue cracks were present near the outboard bolt holes. This airplane's usage history included personal use, flight instruction, and charter flights.
• NTSB Accident Number ERA18FA120: April 4, 2018—Daytona Beach, FL—Piper Model PA-28R-201—7,691 hours TIS. This accident was determined to have been caused by fatigue cracking in the outboard bolt holes of the main wing spar. This airplane's primary usage was flight instruction.
Following the release of AD 2020-26-16, the FAA and Piper received over 2,800 bolt-hole eddy current inspection reports. The inspections performed in the field revealed a mix of observations that warrant further discussion. Of the total inspections, over 100 reported a positive eddy current indication, with several including pictures of the bolt
Piper later conducted more detailed inspections in a study of 24 main wing spars with 20 having positive eddy current indications. Out of the 20 positive indications, 3 were identified as fatigue cracks, where 1 was confirmed by Piper, and 2 were confirmed by the NTSB. The remaining were determined to be features not consistent with a crack, and 1 overstress crack as confirmed by the NTSB.
Though not all are confirmed, many of the indications are likely not fatigue cracks but are a variety of anomalies in the hole. These can include corrosion pitting, scratches, gouges, and threading marks possibly caused by forceful insertion and removal of the close-fit bolts without proper unloading of the wing or other reasons. While these may not present as fatigue cracks at the time of inspection, anomalies in the hole create a stress concentration where cracks can begin to grow. Therefore, it is still crucial to inspect the critical bolt holes for these issues and take corrective action to prevent the formation of fatigue cracks. Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, Revision A, dated September 17, 2021 (Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A); and Piper Service Bulletin No. 1412, dated May 7, 2024 (Piper SB No. 1412), include procedures for distinguishing between indications caused by hole damage or other anomalies from those caused by cracks.
In addition to the various forms of non-crack hole damage, the inspections revealed several cracks in and around the bolt holes. As part of the AD 2020-26-16 inspection reports, 6 cracks were found, including 2 later verified by NTSB lab examination and 1 verified by Piper (from the Piper study referenced above), and 3 visible cracks in photos. Other known cracks include those found in an airplane in the same fleet as the 2018 accident airplane, a separately submitted crack finding confirmed with dye penetrant, and a crack located on the lower spar cap surface running alongside the inspection bolt holes. Given these findings, additional cracks may be present among the other unconfirmed reported indications.
Other cracks have been discovered that may be caused by overload rather than by fatigue. While use of the airplane within its limits should not cause an overload crack, some crack findings have revealed that airplanes have been operated outside their limits. Though cracks due to overload are not the primary source of this corrective action, this emphasizes the need for and importance of inspecting the spar bolt holes for evidence of any cracking.
The AD 2020-26-16 inspection report results indicated that additional inspections are needed to manage the safety of the fleet. Data indicates that more airplanes will need to be inspected, including the need to expand inspections to Piper airplane models that share a similar structural design of the main wing spar beyond the models addressed in AD 2020-26-16.
Crack development is a function of many factors, including the design of the structure, how severely the aircraft is flown, and manufacturing processes. Small imperfections may exist in any aircraft structure from an early age; however, through operation, these imperfections may slowly grow into fatigue cracks. Fatigue cracks have the effect of weakening the structure and its ability to support the stresses the airplane was originally designed to handle.
The 2018 accident, along with other accidents in this fleet attributed to fatigue cracking, and the AD 2020-26-16 inspection reports, indicate an aging fleet that requires intervention to ensure any fatigue cracking does not reach a critical state prior to being detected.
Ensuring further damage is not caused by an inspection itself is important; however, inspecting for fatigue cracks as well as other hole anomalies is critical and outweighs the risk associated with doing the inspections. Piper has developed service actions, most recently in Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A; and Piper SB No. 1412, that mitigate inspection-induced damage by emphasizing proper unloading of the wing for both bolt and wing removal and replacement, if necessary, along with other instructions for ensuring care of the bolt holes.
Each requirement outlined in this proposed AD has been developed to both address the unsafe condition and limit the number of required inspections, reducing the burden on operators where possible. A brief discussion of each aspect of the requirements continues below.
The inspection data received via the reporting requirement in AD 2020-26-16, along with testing of the baseline spar common to all Piper Model PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes, has shown that inspections should be extended to include Piper airplane models that share similar structural design but were not included in the applicability of AD 2020-26-16. It is likely that a significant contributing factor in the formation of cracks found in the main wing spar bolt attachment area is the cold bending of the spar to achieve the wing's dihedral. This method of forming the spar dihedral combined with the proximity to the wing attachment bolt holes leads to high residual stress in that area. The potential for fatigue cracking in and around the bolt holes, as well as higher variability in crack location and severity, is higher under this constant additional stress.
In an attempt to support less onerous inspections and to understand the causal factors, Piper investigated the residual stresses in the critical bolt-hole area. That investigation showed that the residual stress due to the spar cold bending process is a significant contributing factor in reducing the fatigue life of the spar bolt holes. An additional outcome of this investigation is a change to all new manufactured spars having machined dihedral bends to eliminate the residual stresses in the critical area.
Though there are differences between all Model PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes, such as additional reinforcing structure and lower operational loads, all airplane models share this same baseline spar with the cold bent dihedral. Differing characteristics allow for a grouping and tailoring of the requirements for each airplane model, but all airplane models need to be inspected. The airplane models in the applicability of this proposed AD are not the same airplane models that are included in the applicability of the proposed rulemaking action (Docket No. FAA-2024-2142) that would supersede AD 2020-26-16, and the proposed required actions are different between these two proposed rulemaking actions.
The remaining Piper Model PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes that would not be included in the applicability of this proposed AD either experience higher operational loads or have less structure. Both of these conditions increase the stress experienced in the subject bolt holes of the baseline spar and thus are subject to the proposed rulemaking action (Docket No. FAA-2024-2142) to supersede AD 2020-26-16.
The proposed compliance time for the eddy-current inspection specified in this proposed AD was based on an inspection report received in response to AD 2020-26-16 that showed a crack indication in a Model PA-32-300 wing
Wing spars on the affected Piper airplanes could develop cracks that, if not addressed, would result in a wing separating from the fuselage in flight.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Piper Service Bulletin 1412, dated May 7, 2024. This material specifies procedures for doing a one-time eddy current inspection of the lower wing spar bolt holes for crack(s) and replacing any cracked main wing spar. This material also includes instructions to report the results of the inspection to Piper. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require reviewing airplane maintenance records to determine if an eddy current inspection of the lower main wing spar bolt holes was done and depending on the result, doing an eddy current inspection of the lower wing spar for crack(s) if not previously done or if done prior to 12,000 hours TIS, and replacing any cracked main wing spar. This proposed AD would also require sending all inspection results to Piper and the FAA.
Piper SB 1412 specifies to contact Piper for disposition if any non-crack damage is found in the main wing spar bolt holes or any crack(s) or non-crack damage is found in the spar box bolt holes but this proposed AD would require contacting either the Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA, or the Piper Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) for instructions and doing those actions. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to the proposed AD.
Piper SB 1412 specifies using its feedback form to report the inspection results but this proposed AD would require using the form included as Appendix 1 to this proposed AD.
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. The proposed inspection reports would provide the FAA with additional data for determining the number of cracks present in the fleet. After analyzing the data, the FAA may take further rulemaking action.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 10,927 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed airplane maintenance records review. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by November 4, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) airplanes, certificated in any category, with a model and serial number shown in Table 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (c) of this AD and that meet at least one of the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this AD.
(1) Has accumulated 12,000 or more total hours time-in-service (TIS) on a wing spar; or
(2) Has missing or incomplete maintenance records.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 5711, WING SPAR.
This AD was prompted by a report of a wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in a visually inaccessible area of the main wing lower spar cap and additional reports of fatigue cracking in the wing spars of airplanes that share common type design features. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue crack(s) in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the wing separating from the fuselage in flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days or 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, review the airplane maintenance records to determine when the previous inspection of each main wing spar was completed. The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may accomplish this and must enter compliance with this paragraph of the AD into the airplane maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. If it can be determined from the airplane maintenance records review that an eddy current inspection of the main wing spar was done prior to the effective date of this AD at 12,000 hours TIS or greater and in accordance with Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020; or Piper Service Bulletin 1345A, dated September 17, 2021, then you may take credit for the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Within the compliance time specified in either paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD, as applicable, on both the left and right main wing spars, do an eddy current inspection of the inner surface of each bolt hole in the lower wing spar cap for crack(s) and for non-crack damage (including deep scratches, gouges, and thread marks), in accordance with paragraph 5. of the Instructions in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1412, dated May 7, 2024 (Piper SB No. 1412). Although Piper SB No. 1412 specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level III certification to perform eddy current and fluorescent penetrant inspections, this AD allows Level II or Level III qualification standards for inspection personnel using any inspector criteria approved by the FAA.
(i) Within 100 hours TIS after complying with paragraph (g) of this AD or within 100 hours TIS after a main wing spar accumulates 12,000 hours TIS, whichever occurs later; or
(ii) For airplanes with an unknown number of hours TIS on a main wing spar, within 100 hours TIS or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) If the eddy current inspection does not identify any indications, before further flight,
(3) If the eddy current inspection identifies any crack(s), indications, or noisy signal, before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph 5.b. through k. of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1412.
(i) If any non-crack damage is found in the main wing spar bolt holes or any crack(s) or non-crack damage is found in the spar box bolt holes contact either the Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA, or the Piper Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) for instructions and do those actions. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(ii) If any crack(s) is found in the main wing spar bolt hole, replace the main wing spar as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(iii) If no crack(s) or non-crack damage is found in the main wing spar bolt holes install new main wing spar bolts and nuts as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
If any crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected main wing spar with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar or with a serviceable (more than zero hours TIS) main wing spar that has passed the eddy current inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
Before further flight, after completing the actions required by paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD, install new main wing spar bolts and nuts in accordance with paragraph (step) 9 of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1412.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD, report the inspection results to the FAA, East Certification Branch, and to Piper Aircraft, Inc., using Appendix 1, “Inspection Results Form,” of this AD,
(1) If the action was done on or after the effective date of this AD, submit the report within 30 days after the action was done.
(2) If the action was done before the effective date of this AD, submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
If the inspections of the main wing spars required by paragraph (h) of this AD were done before the effective date of this AD at 12,000 hours TIS or greater in accordance with Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020; or Piper Service Bulletin 1345A, dated September 17, 2021, then you may take credit for these inspections.
A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to permit a one-time, non-revenue ferry flight to a location where the airplane can be inspected. This ferry flight must be performed with only essential flight crew. This AD prohibits a special flight permit if any inspection reveals a crack in the main wing spar.
(1) The Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the East Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, East Certification Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5507; email:
(2) Piper material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (p)(3) of this AD.
(3) FAA Advisory Circular 65-31B, “Training, Qualification, and Certification of Nondestructive Inspection Personnel,” dated February 24, 2014, may be found at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1412, dated May 7, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) For Piper material identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772) 567-4361; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations regarding the Federal income tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for certain costs relating to qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property that is placed in service within a low-income community or within a non-urban census tract. These proposed regulations would affect eligible taxpayers who place qualified property into service during a taxable year.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by November 18, 2024.
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, contact Kevin I. Babitz or Whitney E. Brady of Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries) at (202) 317-6853 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments and requests for a public hearing, Publications and Regulations Section at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number) or by email to
This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 30C, 48, 48E, 6417, and 6418 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) issued by the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate (Secretary) under the authority granted under sections 30C(e)(5), (g)(4), and (h), 45(b)(12), 48(a)(16), 48E(i), 6417(h), 6418(g) and (h), and 7805(a) of the Code (proposed regulations).
Section 30C includes three specific delegations of regulatory authority. First, 30C(h) provides a general grant of regulatory authority for section 30C as a whole, stating, “[t]he Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.” Second, section 30C(g)(4) provides a specific delegation of authority related to the prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship (PWA) requirements: “The Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including regulations or other guidance that provides for requirements for recordkeeping or information reporting for purposes of administering the requirements of this subsection.” Third, section 30C(e)(5) provides a specific delegation of authority by cross-reference to provide recapture rules similar to those under former section 179A (described in part III.A. of the Background section and part IV.A. of the Explanation of Provisions section) as authorized by former section 179A(e)(4).
Sections 45(b)(12) and 48(a)(16) provide specific delegations of authority with respect to the requirements of section 45(b), including the PWA requirements of section 45(b)(7) and (8) that sections 48(a)(10) and (11) and 48E(d)(3) and (4) refer to, each stating, “[t]he Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including regulations or other guidance which provides for requirements for recordkeeping or information reporting for purposes of administering the requirements of this subsection.” Section 48E(i) provides a specific delegation of authority with respect to the requirements of section 48E, including the PWA requirements of section 48E(d)(3) and (4), stating, that “[n]ot later than January 1, 2025, the Secretary shall issue guidance regarding implementation of this section.”
Sections 6417(h) and 6418(h) provide specific delegations of authority with respect to the elective payment election rules of section 6417 and the transfer of certain credits under section 6418, each stating, in part, that “[t]he Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section . . .” Finally, section 7805(a) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of the Code.
Section 30C of the Code allows a credit (section 30C credit) against the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Code (chapter 1) with respect to each item of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property that a taxpayer places in service. The section 30C credit is determined and allowed with respect to the taxable year in which the taxpayer places the item of property in service.
Section 30C was originally enacted by section 1342(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594, 1049 (Aug. 8, 2005), to provide a credit for the cost of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property. Section 30C has been amended several times since its enactment, most recently by section 13404 of Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818, 1966 (August 16, 2022), commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). As amended by the IRA, section 30C allows taxpayers to claim a credit for up to 30 percent of the cost of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property placed in service after December 31, 2022, and on or before December 31, 2032.
The amount of the section 30C credit is treated as a personal credit or a general business credit depending on the character of the property that the taxpayer places in service. In general, the section 30C credit is a nonrefundable personal credit allowed under subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1. However, the amount of the section 30C credit that is attributable to property that is of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation (depreciable property) is treated under section 30C(d)(1) as a current year business credit under section 38(b) of the Code instead of being allowed under section 30C(a).
For property placed in service after December 31, 2022, and on or before December 31, 2032, section 30C(a) provides a credit equal to 6 percent of the cost of any qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property that the taxpayer places in service during the year, if the property is depreciable property. However, for depreciable property that is placed in service as part of a qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling project that satisfies the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements (discussed further in part V of this Background section), the amount of the section 30C credit is multiplied by five. For property that is not subject to depreciation, section 30C(a) allows a 30 percent credit for any property placed in service during the taxable year, with no requirement to satisfy any prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
The section 30C credit with respect to any single item of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year is limited to $100,000 in the case of depreciable property, and $1,000 in any other case. Before the IRA's amendments to section 30C became applicable, prior law limited the section 30C credit, on a per location basis, to $30,000 in the case of depreciable property and to $1,000 in the case of any other property. Section 13404 of the IRA modified the limitation on the section 30C credit so that it now applies with respect to any single item of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property instead of with respect to all qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property at a location.
Under section 30C(e)(1), taxpayers who claim a section 30C credit are required to reduce the basis of any property for which the section 30C credit is allowable by the amount of the credit allowed (without regard to the rules of section 30C(d)). If a taxpayer elects not to claim the credit, then no section 30C credit is allowed, whether under section 30C(a) or section 38, and no basis reduction is required.
No section 30C credit is allowable for the portion of the cost of any property taken into account under section 179. Section 30C(e)(3).
Section 30C(c) defines “qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property” by reference to section 179A of the Code, with some modifications. (Section 30C(e)(6) clarifies that for purposes of section 30C, any references to “section 179A” are to section 179A as in effect immediately before its repeal by section 221(a)(34)(A) of the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, enacted as Division A of Public Law 113-295, 128 Stat. 4010, 4042 (December 19, 2014), which is referred to as “former section 179A” in this preamble.) Following the definition in former section 179A, therefore, qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property generally includes any depreciable property (not including a building and its structural components), the original use of which begins with the taxpayer, and that is (1) for the storage or dispensing of a clean-burning fuel into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle propelled by such fuel, but only if the storage or dispensing of the fuel is at the point where such fuel is delivered into the fuel tank of the motor vehicle, or (2) for the recharging of motor vehicles propelled by electricity, but only if the property is located at the point where the motor vehicles are recharged.
For purposes of section 30C, “clean-burning fuels” includes only (1) any fuel at least 85 percent of the volume of which consists of one or more of the following: ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen; (2) any mixture that consists of two or more of the following: biodiesel (as defined in section 40A(d)(1) of the Code), diesel fuel (as defined in section 4083(a)(3) of the Code), or kerosene, and at least 20 percent of the volume of which consists of biodiesel determined without regard to any kerosene in such mixture; (3) electricity; or (4) any transportation fuel (as defined in section 45Z(d)(5) of the Code) that is produced after December 31, 2024.
Section 30C does not provide a general definition of “motor vehicle.” However, former section 179A(e)(2) defined motor vehicle to mean any vehicle that is manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways (not including a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or by rails) and that has at least four wheels. Further, section 30C(f) explicitly allows the credit for depreciable property to recharge two- and three-wheeled motor vehicles manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, or highways that are propelled by electricity. Section 30C(f)(1)(A) requires that the depreciable property “meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2),” but there is no subsection (a)(2) in the statute.
Section 30C(c)(2) provides that qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property does not exclude otherwise eligible property that both is capable of charging the battery of a motor vehicle propelled by electricity and also allows discharging electricity from such battery to an electric load external to the motor vehicle.
Section 30C, as amended by the IRA, requires that property be placed in service in an eligible census tract in order to qualify for the credit. An eligible census tract is any population census tract that either is a low-income community under section 45D(e) of the Code or is not an urban area (non-urban area).
Section 30C(c)(3)(B)(i)(I) includes as an eligible census tract any population census tract that is described in section 45D(e), which defines the term “low-income community” for purposes of the new markets tax credit (NMTC). As a general rule, section 45D(e)(1) defines a low-income community as any population census tract for which the poverty rate is at least 20 percent. The statute also provides more specific ways that a tract can constitute a low-income community. Section 45D(e)(1) provides that a tract not located within a
Following the guidelines in section 45D(e), the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) designates population census tracts as low-income communities for purposes of the NMTC. The CDFI Fund determines these population census tracts based in part on American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, which are published by the Census Bureau. The CDFI Fund updates its NMTC determination of “low-income community” census tracts approximately every five years based on the updated ACS 5-year estimates. The last update occurred on September 1, 2023, when the NMTC low-income community census tracts were updated to be based on the 2016-2020 ACS 5-year estimates (2016-2020 NMTC tracts), which use the 2020 delineation of census tract boundaries (2020 census tract boundaries). Prior to September 1, 2023, the NMTC low-income community census tracts were based on 2011-2015 ACS 5-year estimates (2011-2015 NMTC tracts), which use the 2015 delineation of census tract boundaries (2015 census tract boundaries). The next update is expected to occur in 2028.
When there is an update, the CDFI Fund provides a one-year transition period during which taxpayers may look to either of the 5-year census tracts. Therefore, between September 1, 2023, and August 31, 2024, taxpayers can look to either the 2011-2015 NMTC or the 2016-2020 NMTC tracts to determine which population census tracts are low-income communities for the NMTC (and, by extension for section 30C purposes). On or after September 1, 2024, taxpayers must look to the 2016-2020 NMTC tracts to determine which population census tracts are low-income communities for the NMTC.
Pursuant to section 30C(c)(3)(B)(i)(II), an eligible census tract includes a non-urban area. Section 30C(c)(3)(B)(ii), defines “urban area” as a population census tract that has been designated as an urban area by the Secretary of Commerce in the most recent decennial census. However, as of the 2020 Census (that is, the most recent decennial census as of the publication of this document), the Census Bureau defines urban areas on the basis of census blocks and not on the basis of population census tracts. The Census Bureau determines urban areas based on how densely developed a territory is, and to what extent the territory encompasses residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. The Census Bureau delineates urban areas after each decennial census.
Section 30C(e)(3) provides generally that property used outside the United States does not qualify for the section 30C credit by excluding property referred to in section 50(b)(1) of the Code, which provides generally that property used predominantly outside the United States does not qualify for a credit to which section 50 applies. However, section 50(b)(1)(B) provides an exception for certain categories of property described in section 168(g)(4) of the Code. Section 168(g)(4) describes, among other things, property owned by a domestic corporation or by a United States citizen (other than a citizen entitled to the benefits of section 931 or section 933) and that is used predominantly in a territory (also referred to as a possession) of the United States by such a corporation or such a citizen, or by a corporation created or organized in, or under the law of, a territory of the United States. Accordingly, because section 30C(e)(3), by reason of sections 50(b)(1)(B) and 168(g)(4), would allow for qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property to be used by certain taxpayers predominantly in a territory of the United States, eligible census tracts include low-income community census tracts and non-urban census tracts located in a territory of the United States.
Section 30C(e)(2) provides that in the case of any qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property the use of which is described in section 50(b)(3) (generally, use by tax-exempt organizations) or (b)(4) (generally, use by the United States or a government entity or foreign persons or entities) and that is not subject to a lease, the person who sold such property to the person or entity using such property is treated as the taxpayer that placed such property in service, but only if the seller clearly discloses to the tax-exempt or government entity in a document the amount of any credit allowable under section 30C(a) with respect to such property (determined without regard to section 30C(d) (treating the credit as a credit listed in section 38(b) or as a personal credit)). For purposes of section 30C(d), property to which section 30C(e)(2) applies is treated as of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation.
The IRA amended several sections of the Code, including section 30C, to provide increased credit amounts for taxpayers who satisfy certain requirements, including an increased credit amount for satisfying prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship (PWA) requirements. This same increased credit amount is available under certain sections of the Code, including section 30C, if beginning of construction occurs before January 29, 2023 (BOC Exception).
For properties placed in service after December 31, 2022, the section 30C credit is equal to 6 percent for depreciable property. If a taxpayer satisfies the PWA requirements in section 30C(g)(2) and (3) or meets the BOC Exception with respect to a qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling project, then the credit determined under section 30C(a) for any qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property that is depreciable property and that is part of such project is multiplied by five. For purposes of the PWA requirements, section
On June 25, 2024, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations in the
Section 6417 allows an applicable entity (as defined in section 6417(d)(1)(A), generally including tax-exempt and government entities, Indian Tribal governments, and Alaska Native Corporations, among others) to make an election to be treated as making a payment against the tax imposed by subtitle A of the Code for the taxable year with respect to which an applicable credit (as defined in section 6417(b)) was determined equal to the amount of the applicable credit. Section 6417(b)(1) includes the amount of a section 30C credit, to the extent treated under section 30C(d)(1) as a general business credit under section 38, as an applicable credit.
Section 6418 permits an eligible taxpayer (defined in section 6418(f)(2) as a taxpayer not described in section 6417(d)(1)(A)) to make an election to transfer all or a portion of an eligible credit (defined in section 6418(f)(1)), determined with respect to such taxpayer for any taxable year to an unrelated taxpayer (within the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)). Section 6418(f)(1)(A)(i) includes the amount of a section 30C credit, to the extent treated under section 30C(d)(1) as a general business credit under section 38, as an eligible credit.
On May 29, 2007, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2007-43, 2007-22 I.R.B. 1318, which provided interim guidance on the then-recently enacted section 30C. This notice provided specific guidance relating to the computation of the section 30C credit and the treatment for purposes of the credit of converted and dual-use refueling property.
On November 21, 2022, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2022-56, 2022-47 I.R.B. 480. This notice requested general comments on issues arising under section 30C, as amended by the IRA, as well as specific comments concerning: (1) depreciable property; (2) the definition of a “single item”; (3) bidirectional charging equipment; (4) eligible census tracts; (5) recapture; and (6) miscellaneous topics. The Treasury Department and the IRS received 135 comments from industry participants, environmental groups, individual consumers, and other stakeholders. The Treasury Department and the IRS appreciate the commenters' interest and engagement on these issues. These comments have been considered carefully in the preparation of these proposed regulations.
On February 12, 2024, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2024-20, 2024-7 I.R.B. 668, to provide guidance on eligible census tracts for the section 30C credit and to announce the intent to propose regulations for the credit. This notice describes relevant census concepts, provides background and definitions for low-income communities and non-urban census tracts, and explains the census tract boundaries that apply for the relevant census tract determinations. The notice also provides taxpayers with a list of eligible census tracts in advance of the 2023 filing season and explains how taxpayers can identify the 11-digit census tract identifier for a location where a property is placed in service.
Proposed § 1.30C-1(a) would provide a general overview of the proposed section 30C regulations. Proposed § 1.30C-1(b) would provide definitions that would apply for purposes of section 30C and the 30C regulations.
The proposed regulations use the term “30C property” to describe property that is eligible for the section 30C credit. As proposed, the term 30C property would generally be synonymous with the statutory phrase “qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property.” Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(1) would define 30C property to include any property (other than real property and a building and its structural components) that is comprised of components that are functionally interdependent for “refueling property” or “recharging property” and, if applicable, an integral part of the refueling property or recharging property. For purposes of the proposed regulations, refueling property would mean property for the storage and dispensing of a qualified alternative fuel into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle propelled by such fuel, but only if the storage or dispensing of the fuel is at the point where such fuel is delivered into the fuel tank of the motor vehicle. Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(1)(i)(A);
Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(14) would provide that components are “functionally interdependent” if the placing in service of each component is dependent upon the placing in service of each of the other components in order to refuel or recharge a motor vehicle. Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(15) would further provide that property is an “integral part” of a refueling or recharging property if it is used directly in the intended function of the refueling property or recharging property and is essential to the completeness of this intended function, meets all of the requirements for 30C property described in proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(1)(iii), is owned by the taxpayer that owns the refueling property or recharging property, and is specifically designed to be integrated with the refueling property or recharging property with which it is associated.
Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(1)(iii) would provide a list of additional requirements that any eligible property must meet to be 30C property. First, the property must either be of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation or installed on property that is used as the principal residence of the taxpayer (within the meaning of section 121).
Proposed § 1.30C-2(a)(1) would provide that section 30C(a) allows a taxpayer to claim as a credit against the tax imposed by chapter 1 an amount equal to a percentage of the cost of any 30C property placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year, subject to certain dollar-amount limitations described in section 30C(b) and proposed § 1.30C-2(a)(4).
Consistent with section 30C(a), proposed § 1.30C-2(a)(2)(i) would provide that in the case of depreciable property, section 30C(a) allows as a credit against tax an amount equal to 6 percent of the cost of any 30C property placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year. Under proposed § 1.30C-2(a)(2)(ii), the section 30C credit for the cost of any 30C property placed in service as part of a project that meets the PWA requirements is multiplied by 5. Property placed in service by certain tax-exempt organizations and governmental units described in section 50(b)(3) and (4) of the Code is treated as property of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation for purposes of calculating the section 30C credit.
If the business use of the property is 50 percent or less, proposed § 1.30C-2(a)(3) would provide rules for apportioning the section 30C credit between business use and personal use. If the business use is more than 50 percent, then the section 30C credit would be treated under the proposed regulations only as a general business credit under section 30C(d)(1) (and subject to the $100,000 limitation). If the business use of the 30C property is 50 percent or less, then the property would be considered “apportioned-use property” under the proposed regulations and the taxpayer's section 30C credit for that taxable year for that 30C property would be apportioned in accordance with the taxpayer's use of the property between the general business credit under section 30C(d)(1) and the personal credit allowed under section 30C(a) pursuant to section 30C(d)(2). To be within these apportionment rules, the proposed regulations would provide that the 30C property must be installed at the taxpayer's personal residence to qualify for the personal credit, but also be used for business use. For example, these proposed rules would apply to a taxpayer who operates a delivery service and installs an electric vehicle charger at her personal residence, which she uses to charge both her personal vehicle and her delivery vehicle.
If 30C property is apportioned-use property, proposed § 1.30C-2(a)(4)(ii) would provide that the dollar-amount limitation must be apportioned in the same manner as the taxpayer's credit under section 30C. For example, in the case of 30C property the business use of which is 40 percent of a taxpayer's total use of the property for the taxable year in which the property is placed in service, the portion treated as a general business credit under section 30C(d)(1) cannot exceed $40,000 ($100,000 multiplied by 40 percent), and the portion treated as a section 30C credit allowed under section 30C(a) cannot exceed $600 ($1,000 multiplied by 60 percent).
As discussed in part II of the Background section of this preamble, one major change that the IRA made to section 30C was to allow the credit per single item of property, rather than per location. Thus, proposed § 1.30C-2(b)(1) would provide that taxpayers may claim a section 30C credit if they place in service at least one single item of 30C property during the taxable year.
Section 30C does not define “single item of property.” In Notice 2022-56, the Treasury Department and the IRS asked for comments on how to define a “single item of property.” Many commenters suggested that, for purposes of electric vehicle chargers, a “single item” should be defined as each charging port and that the item also should include functionally interdependent property as well as other property that commenters deemed necessary for the installation and use of the charger. The proposed regulations largely adopt these comments.
For purposes of calculating the section 30C credit, proposed § 1.30C-2(b)(1) would define a single item of 30C property as each charging port for recharging property, each fuel dispenser for refueling property, or each qualified alternative fuel storage property or electrical energy storage property.
For purposes of the proposed regulations, a charging port would mean the system within a charger that charges one motor vehicle. Under proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(6), a charging port may have multiple connectors, but it can provide power at its rated electrical output to charge only one motor vehicle through one connector at a time. Some chargers may have more than one port, in which case proposed § 1.30C-2(b)(2)(ii) would provide that the cost of the charger would need to be allocated among the number of ports for purposes of determining the credit. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the commenters that allowing the credit based on the number of motor vehicles that could be charged simultaneously at the port's rated electrical output is appropriate based on the IRA amendments to section 30C to provide a credit limit per single item of property, rather than a broader term such as per charging property or per location, and consistent with one purpose of the IRA to expand incentives for taxpayers to transition to clean vehicles.
The proposed regulations would define a fuel dispenser as the unit through which fuel is dispensed into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle if such unit is capable of fueling at or above the dispenser's minimum rate of fueling and has at least one hose and nozzle. Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(12) would provide that a dispenser may optionally include a meter, valve, controller, and enclosure. These proposed regulations would use these definitions of “fuel dispenser” for refueling property and “charging port” for recharging property with the goal to similarly situate the accounting of credits among the eligible alternative fuels with consideration of their refueling technologies and station designs.
Proposed § 1.30C-1(b)(25) would define two types of storage property: qualified alternative fuel storage
Former section 179A(d)(3)(A), adopted by reference into section 30C(c), uses the language “for the storage or dispensing of a clean-burning fuel into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle propelled by such fuel” in its definition of qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling property, indicating that clean-burning fuel storage property is a separate item of qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling property. Former section 179A(d)(3)(B) uses the language “for the recharging of motor vehicles propelled by electricity” as a separate prong of this same definition, indicating that electrical energy storage property is not a separate item of qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling property. However, former section 179A(e)(1) includes electricity within the definition of clean-burning fuels, such that electric vehicle refueling property could be eligible property under either former section 179A(d)(3)(A) (where storage is specifically mentioned) or (B) (where storage is not specifically mentioned). These proposed regulations would provide that the cost of electrical energy storage property that is used for charging motor vehicles is creditable as a separate item of property under section 30C. Electrical energy storage can be used for electric vehicle charging to smooth costs and to minimize the impact on the electrical grid by taking the energy from the grid during non-peak hours when energy is cheaper and storing the energy for use during higher cost peak hours. Thus, electrical energy storage can be a critical part of electric vehicle recharging infrastructure. Further, treating all types of storage as a separate item of property is consistent with the language of former section 179A(d). Finally, allowing electrical energy storage property as a separate item of property treats storage property consistently across various types of clean-burning fuel.
These proposed regulations would also modify proposed §§ 1.48-9 and 1.48E-2 to provide that energy storage technology does not include energy storage property for which the taxpayer claims a credit under section 30C. Energy storage technology may be eligible for an investment credit under sections 48 and 48E, subject to certain limitations. However, sections 48 and 48E exclude from the definition of energy storage technology property primarily used in the transportation of goods or individuals and not for the production of electricity.
Under proposed § 1.30C-2(b)(1), the amount of the section 30C credit would include the cost of functionally interdependent property and, if applicable, any property that is an integral part of refueling or recharging property that is part of the 30C property placed in service by the taxpayer during the year (associated property). These costs would be included in the section 30C credit for a single item to the extent that they are directly attributable and traceable to that particular single item of 30C property. The cost of associated property that is directly attributable and traceable to more than one item of 30C property would be allocated among the relevant items based on the cost of each single item of 30C property. In no case would the total cost of the associated property divided among different items of 30C property exceed 100 percent of the cost of the associated property.
Proposed § 1.30C-2(b)(3) would provide that the section 30C credit is the lesser of the “tentative section 30C credit,” or the $100,000 or $1,000 limit (as appropriate). The tentative section 30C credit for each single item of 30C property would be the sum of the cost of the single item of 30C property, the cost of any associated property directly attributable and traceable to the single item of 30C property, and the cost of a ratable share of allocated associated property, multiplied by the applicable credit rate (6 percent or 30 percent).
Notice 2022-56 requested comments on the factors and definitions that should be considered in developing guidance for bidirectional charging equipment (that is, property that is capable of charging the battery of an electric vehicle and also allows the discharging of electricity from such battery to an electric load external to such motor vehicle).
The IRA amendments clarify that a charger that otherwise meets the requirements of 30C property is not excluded simply because the charger also allows discharging of electricity from the motor vehicle's battery, but the IRA amendments do not expand the section 30C credit in the manner suggested by commenters. In particular, section 30C(c)(2) uses the language “shall not fail to be treated,” suggesting a clarification rather than a significant expansion of the credit. In addition, the Code contains separate tax credits for electric vehicles, including credits targeted to the electric vehicle battery.
Section 30C(f) provides additional special rules for electric charging stations for certain vehicles with two or three wheels. Section 30C(f)(1) provides that the term “qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property” includes property described in section 30C(c) for the recharging of a motor vehicle described in section 30C(f)(2), but only if such property meets the requirements of section 30C(a)(2) and is of a character subject to depreciation. However, section 30C(a)(2) does not exist. The Treasury Department and the IRS view this as a clerical error and, as a result, will apply section 30C(f)(1) without giving effect to section 30C(f)(1)(A). Thus, proposed § 1.30C-2(b)(5) would provide that 30C property also includes depreciable property that is for the recharging of a two- or three-wheeled electric vehicle because there are no requirements of section 30C(a)(2) under current law.
Consistent with section 30C(c)(3)(B), proposed § 1.30C-2(c)(1) would provide that 30C property must be placed in service in an eligible census tract to qualify for the section 30C credit. Eligible census tracts include any population census tract that qualifies as a low-income community census tract or that is a non-urban census tract.
Proposed § 1.30C-2(c)(2)(i) would provide that a population census tract is an eligible “low-income community census tract” for purposes of the section 30C credit if the population census tract meets the requirements of the NMTC under section 45D(e)(1), which requires that the poverty rate for such tract is at least 20 percent, or in the case of a tract not located within a metropolitan area, the median family income for such tract does not exceed 80 percent of statewide median family income, or in the case of a tract located within a metropolitan area, the median family income for such tract does not exceed 80 percent of the greater of statewide median family income or the metropolitan area median family income. Proposed § 1.30C-2(c)(2)(ii) would provide that census tracts located within a high migration rural county, as defined under section 45D(e)(5), are low-income community census tracts if the median family income for the tract does not exceed 85 percent of statewide median family income.
Based on the ACS 5-year low-income community data, census tracts as described under section 45D(e)(1) can be identified and they are published by the CDFI Fund. Additionally, the CDFI Fund has published, beginning with the 2016-2020 NMTC tracts, the census tracts that qualify as low-income census tracts because the census tracts are located in high migration rural counties as described under section 45D(e)(5). However, after consultation with the CDFI Fund, the Treasury Department and the IRS cannot identify with verifiable accuracy the population census tracts that currently meet the requirements of section 45D(e)(2) and (4). Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether and how the population census tracts named under section 45D(e)(2) and (4) could be identified accurately to qualify as eligible census tracts for the credit under 30C. The areas described in section 45D(e)(3) are not population census tracts as required by section 30C(c)(3)(B)(i), and therefore do not qualify as eligible census tracts for purposes of the section 30C credit.
Proposed § 1.30C-2(c)(3) would provide that “non-urban census tract” means any population census tract in which at least 10 percent of the census blocks are not designated as urban areas. As the Secretary of Commerce and Census Bureau no longer identify census tracts as urban or non-urban, the Treasury Department, in consultation with the Census Bureau, determined a percentage of census blocks within a census tract to determine if a census tract is not an urban area under section 30C(c)(3)(B)(ii). The Treasury Department and IRS received comments on this issue in response to Notice 2022-56. The threshold of 10 percent of census blocks being not an urban area to determine if a census tract is a non-urban area census tract is within the range of percentages suggested by commenters.
Proposed § 1.30C-2(c)(4) would provide that the IRS will periodically publish lists of specific census tracts that are low-income census tracts or non-urban census tracts along with instructions on how taxpayers may determine their census tract identifying numbers. Census tract data and boundaries are expected to be updated prior to January 1, 2033, when the section 30C credit is planned to expire. When census tract data changes, the IRS will publish updated lists of the eligible census tracts that qualify as low-income communities or non-urban areas, and the 11-digit census tract GEOIDs associated with each census tract based on the applicable census data.
There is a variety of equipment available to recharge electric vehicles. Some are installed at a fixed location (that is, stationary) and may be mounted upon concrete pads or installed as fixtures on the walls of buildings. Some recharging equipment are mobile; however, the degree to which such equipment are mobile varies greatly depending on their use and purpose. Mobile chargers may be transported to allow for the dispensing of electricity closer to where a vehicle is parked, in contrast to having to drive a vehicle to stationary equipment. Mobile chargers may be physically connected to a source of electricity at a physical address or, conversely, receive electricity from a battery that is temporarily separated from a physical address.
The requirement under section 30C(c)(3) that property must be placed in service in an eligible census tract to qualify for the section 30C credit suggests that the property must also be used in the eligible census tract. However, depending on its design and purpose, mobile equipment may not always be used in the eligible census tract in which it was placed in service. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on how mobile equipment could satisfy the geographic requirement that 30C property must be placed in service in an eligible census tract, and request comments on any related rules that should be adopted, particularly with respect to any administrative requirements to ensure
The proposed regulations would supplement the final PWA regulations in § 1.30C-3 to further define “qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling project” (30C project) for purposes of satisfying the PWA requirements. Proposed § 1.30C-3(b)(2) would provide that multiple 30C properties will be treated as a single 30C project if the items of property are constructed and operated on a contiguous piece of land, owned by a single taxpayer (subject to the related party rule), placed in service in a single taxable year, and one or more of the following factors is present: (1) the properties are described in one or more common environmental or other regulatory permits; (2) the properties are constructed pursuant to a single master construction contract; or (3) the construction of the properties is financed pursuant to the same loan agreement. Under the related party rule in proposed § 1.30C-3(b)(3), related taxpayers are treated as one taxpayer in determining whether multiple items of 30C property are treated as a single project. For these purposes, related taxpayers are treated as a single taxpayer if they are members of a group of trades or businesses that are under common control (as defined in § 1.52-1(b)). Proposed § 1.30C-3(b)(3).
The proposed regulations would limit a 30C project to encompass only the items of property that are placed in service within the same year because 30C is an annual credit. This approach is consistent with the fact that the section 30C credit is available only in the year the property is placed in service, even if costs related to the property are incurred in earlier years.
Additionally, the proposed regulations would clarify that if a seller of 30C property, the use of which is described in section 50(b)(3) or (4) (generally tax-exempt entities, government entities, and foreign persons and entities), is treated as the taxpayer that placed such property in service under section 30C(e)(2), the seller is the taxpayer required to comply with the PWA recordkeeping requirements. Proposed § 1.30C-3(c).
The proposed regulations would also conform the terminology used in the final PWA regulations in § 1.30C-3(a) and (b) to the terminology used in these proposed regulations. The proposed regulations do not modify any of the rules in the final PWA regulations other than proposed § 1.30C-3, and the Treasury Department and the IRS are not reopening the comment period on the final PWA regulations generally.
Section 30C(e)(5) provides that recapture rules similar to the rules of former section 179A(e)(4) apply; however, former section 179A(e)(4) merely granted authority to provide recapture rules, stating, “The Secretary shall, by regulations, provide for recapturing the benefit of any deduction allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any property which ceases to be property eligible for such deduction.” Accordingly, as noted previously in the Authority section, the Treasury Department and the IRS understand section 30C(e)(5) to be a delegation of authority to the Secretary, by cross-reference to former section 179A(e)(4), to provide recapture rules under section 30C.
The Secretary exercised the authority under former section 179A(e)(4) in issuing former § 1.179A-1 (removed by TD 9849 on March 11, 2019). Proposed § 1.30C-4(b) uses the rules of former § 1.179A-1 as a starting point (in particular, what constitutes a recapture event), with appropriate modifications (for example, to account for apportioned use property and property used by tax-exempt or government entities, neither of which were at issue in former section 179A or the regulations thereunder). In general, proposed § 1.30C-4(b) would require taxpayers to recapture the benefit of any section 30C credit allowed with respect to any property that ceases to be property eligible for such credit. If a recapture event occurs with respect to a taxpayer's 30C property, then the taxpayer must include the recapture amount in taxable income for the taxable year in which the recapture event occurs. Proposed § 1.30C-4(b)(1).
Proposed § 1.30C-4(b)(2) would provide that a recapture event generally occurs if, within three years of the property being placed in service: (1) the taxpayer claiming the section 30C credit modifies the property such that the property no longer qualifies as 30C property; (2) unless the property is subject to section 6417(d)(2)(B), a depreciable property ceases to be used predominantly in a trade or business (meaning that 50 percent or more of the use of the property in a taxable year is for use other than in a trade or business); (3) if the property is apportioned-use property, the property completely ceases to be used in a trade or business, but continues to be used for personal use; or (4) the taxpayer sells or disposes of the 30C property and the taxpayer knows or has reason to know that the property will cease to qualify as 30C property for one of the reasons listed in (1) or (2) of this paragraph. Except as provided in (4), a sale or other disposition (including a disposition by reason of an accident or other casualty) of 30C property is not a recapture event. Proposed § 1.30C-4(b)(3) would clarify that property is not subject to the recapture provisions solely because it is placed in service in a location that subsequently ceases to be in a qualified census tract. Thus, a change in the identification of eligible census tracts alone would not require a taxpayer to recapture the section 30C credit.
Proposed § 1.30C-4(b) would also provide a formula for determining the amount of the recapture and adjustments to basis following a recapture event.
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on how the recapture rules should apply where the person who sells 30C property to a tax-exempt or government entity is treated as the taxpayer placing the 30C property in service, including any notifications that should be required.
Section 30C(e)(2) allows a person who sells 30C property that is used in a manner described in section 50(b)(3) or (4) (generally property used by tax-exempt organizations, government entities, or foreign persons or entities), to be eligible for the section 30C credit, but only if the seller clearly discloses in a document the amount of any such credit allowable. Use of this rule typically results in a lower upfront cost to a tax-exempt or government entity for the 30C property, while allowing the seller to claim the section 30C credit.
Section 6417, added by the IRA, provides a benefit to applicable entities (defined in section 6417(d)(1)(A) and § 1.6417-1(c)), which include certain
Congress appears to have provided tax-exempt and government entities the ability to choose whether a reduced purchase price that may result under section 30C(e)(2) or an elective payment election under section 6417 is more beneficial. To facilitate that choice, and consistent with section 6417(d)(2)(A), proposed § 1.30C-4(c)(2) would treat the use of 30C property by a tax-exempt or government entity as not being described in section 50(b)(3) or (4), and therefore not available for the seller to be treated as the taxpayer placing the 30C property in service, if such entity notifies the seller in writing of its intent to make the section 6417 election.
The section 30C credit is only allowed once per 30C property. Thus, if the tax-exempt or government entity notifies the seller of its intent to make an elective payment election pursuant to section 6417(a) with respect to the section 30C credit, the seller cannot claim any credit allowable under section 30C(a) with respect to such property.
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether this approach is practical for entities described in section 50(b)(3) and (b)(4)(A)(i) and for those who sell them 30C property. The Treasury Department and the IRS also request comments on the notification process described above, including the timing of such notifications and whether transition rules may be necessary for projects for which contracts have already been signed.
Notice 2007-43 provided rules for the application of the section 30C credit to dual-use property, generally meaning property that is used for a creditable purpose and a non-creditable purpose. The proposed regulations would generally incorporate the dual-use rules from the notice, with some modifications to account for subsequent amendments to section 30C (such as the inclusion of transportation fuel as defined in section 45Z(d)(5)).
Proposed § 1.30C-4(d) would provide separate rules for (1) dual-use property that is used for dispensing or storing both qualified alternative fuel and conventional fuel, (2) dual-use property that is used to store qualified alternative fuel that is dispensed into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle and to store fuel that is transported to other locations, and (3) dual-use property that is used to store or transmit electricity for recharging a motor vehicle and for other, non-creditable, purposes. In each case, the creditable portion of the cost of such property is limited to the increase in the cost of the dual-use property over the cost of equivalent property used only for the non-creditable use. For example, if a taxpayer owns a fuel tank that is used to store fuel that is used to refuel motor vehicles at the point where the motor vehicles are refueled, but is also used to store fuel that the taxpayer transports to other locations, then the cost of the fuel tank is taken into account only to the extent the cost exceeds the cost of a tank used only to store fuel transported to other locations. The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that in some cases, this will result in the dual-use property's cost not being creditable under section 30C. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS are of the view that Notice 2007-43 has provided a workable and administrable rule for most of the existence of the section 30C credit to date.
The proposed regulations would also make minor conforming changes to proposed §§ 1.48-9 and 1.48E-2, as well as to §§ 1.6417-6 and 1.6418-5 to comport with the proposed section 30C regulations.
Notice 2007-43, 2007-22 I.R.B. 1318, is withdrawn.
Except as otherwise provided, these regulations are proposed to apply to property placed in service in taxable years ending after the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final rules in the
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, Review of Treasury Regulations under Executive Order 12866 (June 9, 2023), tax regulatory actions issued by the IRS are not subject to the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the OMB.
The collections of information in these proposed regulations contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The recordkeeping requirements mentioned within these proposed regulations are considered general tax records under § 1.6001-1(e). These records are required for the IRS to validate that taxpayers have met the regulatory requirements and are entitled to a credit under section 30C. For PRA purposes, general tax records are already approved by OMB under 1545-0047 for tax-exempt organizations and government entities; 1545-0074 for individuals; and under 1545-0123 for business entities.
These proposed regulations mention requirements to claim the credit in § 1.30C-2(e), using Form 8911,
These proposed regulations also include third-party disclosures if a tax-exempt or government entity makes an election under section 6417 to be treated as making a payment against the tax. This third-party disclosure and its associated burden will be included in form and instructions for Form 8911 (or successor form as the Secretary prescribes) and will be submitted to OMB under 1545-0047, 1545-0074, and 1545-0123 in accordance with the PRA procedures under 5 CFR 1320.10.
With respect to the PWA provisions in § 1.30C-3, these requirements are approved under 1545-2315. With respect to the elective pay provisions in § 1.30C-4(c)(2), there is no form associated with this collection, but will be collected in the portal only and is approved under 1545-2310. These proposed regulations are not changing or creating new collection requirements not already approved by OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Pursuant to the RFA, the Secretary hereby certifies that these proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of section 601(6) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, if feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. Section 30C and these proposed regulations may affect a variety of different entities across multiple industries, including individuals, tax-exempt entities, small businesses, partnerships, and large businesses. Although there is uncertainty as to the exact number of small businesses within this group, the current estimated number of respondents to these proposed rules is 4,000 small business entities, based on a review of filing information since 2019 and extrapolations into the future.
Small business entities to claim the section 30C credit must satisfy reporting requirements that are the same as those faced by individuals accessing the section 30C credit. Taxpayers will continue to file Form 8911,
Although the Treasury Department and IRS estimate that 4,000 small business entities will claim the credit under section 30C in a given year, the proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on such entities. The proposed regulations do not impose any additional burden on taxpayers outside of what is provided by the statute. For example, the IRA modified section 30C(c)(3) to require property to be located in eligible census tracts. These proposed regulations provide guidance regarding low-income areas, non-urban areas, and the determination of eligible census tracts, but do not impose any additional requirements beyond what is set forth in the statute that would give rise to significant economic impacts on small business entities. Additionally, these proposed regulations provide rules regarding recapture of the credit, but recapture is provided for in section 30C(e)(5), and these proposed rules merely provide the framework for the statutorily required recapture.
The Treasury Department and IRS have determined that the continued requirement to file a Form 8911,
Accordingly, the Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments that provide data, other evidence, or models that provide insight on this issue.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency (to the extent practicable and permitted by law) from promulgating any regulation that has federalism implications, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order, if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. Any comments submitted will be made available at
A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits electronic or written
The IRS Revenue Procedures, Notices, and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the
The principal author of the proposed regulations is the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in the development of the proposed regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:
The additions and revisions read in part as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.30C-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 30C(h).
Section 1.30C-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 30C(h).
Section 1.30C-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 30C(g)(4) and (h).
Section 1.30C-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 30C(e)(5) and (h).
Section 1.48-9(e)(10) also issued under 26 U.S.C. 48(a)(16).
Section 1.48E-2(g)(6) also issued under 26 U.S.C. 48E(i).
This section lists the captions contained in §§ 1.30C-1 through 1.30C-4.
(a) In general.
(b) Definitions.
(1) 30C property.
(i) Applicable property.
(ii) Property integral to refueling property or recharging property.
(iii) Other requirements.
(2) 45Z transportation fuel.
(3) Building and structural components.
(4) Census block.
(5) Charger.
(6) Charging port.
(7) Clean burning fuel.
(8) Connector.
(9) Conventional fuel.
(10) Conventional refueling property.
(11) Electric vehicle.
(12) Fuel dispenser.
(13) Fuel tank.
(14) Functionally interdependent.
(15) Integral part.
(16) Located at the point.
(i) Refueling property.
(ii) Recharging property.
(17) Motor vehicle.
(i) In general.
(ii) 2 or 3-wheeled motor vehicle.
(18) Original use.
(19) Population census tract.
(20) Qualified alternative fuel.
(21) Qualifying biodiesel mixture.
(22) Section 30C credit.
(23) Section 30C regulations.
(24) Statutory references.
(i) Chapter 1.
(ii) Code.
(25) Storage property.
(i) In general.
(ii) Qualified alternative fuel storage property.
(iii) Electrical energy storage property.
(c) Applicability date.
(a) Amount of credit.
(1) In general.
(2) Applicable percentages.
(i) Property of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation.
(ii) Projects meeting the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
(iii) Property not subject to an allowance for depreciation.
(3) Apportionment of section 30C credit between business and personal use.
(i) Business use portion.
(ii) Personal use portion.
(4) Dollar-amount limitations.
(i) In general.
(ii) Apportioned-use property.
(b) 30C property rules.
(1) Single item of 30C property.
(2) Associated property.
(3) Calculating the section 30C credit.
(4) Special rule for bidirectional charging equipment.
(5) Property for the refueling of certain two- and three-wheeled motor vehicles.
(6) Placed in service.
(i) Depreciable property.
(ii) Non-depreciable property.
(c) Eligible census tracts.
(1) Geographic requirement.
(2) Low-income community census tract.
(i) In general.
(ii) Modification for high migration rural counties.
(3) Non-urban census tract.
(4) Determination of eligibility of specific census tracts.
(d) Reduction in basis.
(e) Examples.
(1) Example 1.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(2) Example 2.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(3) Example 3.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(4) Example 4.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(5) Example 5.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(6) Example 6.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(7) Example 7.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(8) Example 8.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(9) Example 9.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(10) Example 10.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(11) Example 11.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(12) Example 12.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(13) Example 13.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(14) Example 14.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(A) 30C property.
(B) Calculation of the credit.
(15) Example 15.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(f) Claim requirements.
(g) Applicability date.
(a) In general.
(b) 30C project requirements.
(1) In general.
(2) Determination of a project.
(3) Related taxpayers.
(i) Definition.
(ii) Related taxpayer rule.
(c) Coordination with 30C(e)(2) and § 1.30C-4(c).
(d) Examples.
(1) Example 1.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(2) Example 2.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(e) Applicability date.
(a) No credit allowable in certain circumstance.
(1) Property used outside the United States.
(2) Property placed in service in a United States territory.
(3) Section 179.
(b) Recapture.
(1) In general.
(2) Recapture event.
(3) Property placed in service in a location that ceases to be in a qualified census tract.
(4) Recapture amount.
(i) In general.
(ii) Special rule for apportioned-use property.
(5) Basis adjustment.
(c) Property used by a tax-exempt or governmental entity.
(1) In general.
(2) Interaction with section 6417.
(d) Dual-use property.
(1) Dual use property used for dispensing or storing qualified alternative fuel and conventional fuel.
(2) Qualified alternative fuel storage.
(3) Dual use property used to store or transmit electricity for charging a motor vehicle and for other purposes.
(4) Example.
(i) Facts.
(ii) Analysis.
(e) Applicability date.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i)
(A) For the storage or dispensing of a qualified alternative fuel into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle propelled by such fuel, but only if the storage or dispensing of the fuel is located at the point where such fuel is delivered into the fuel tank of the motor vehicle (refueling property); or
(B) For the recharging of motor vehicles propelled by electricity, but only if the property is located at the point where the motor vehicles are recharged (recharging property).
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The property is of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation, or installed on property that is used as the principal residence of the taxpayer (within the meaning of section 121 of the Code);
(B) The original use of the property begins with the taxpayer; and
(C) The property is placed in service (as defined in § 1.30C-2(b)(6)) in an eligible census tract as described in § 1.30C-2(c).
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) Any qualified alternative fuel; or
(ii) Electricity.
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(ii)
(17)
(ii)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(i) At least 85 percent of its volume consists of one or more of the following: ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen;
(ii) It is a qualifying biodiesel mixture; or
(iii) It is 45Z transportation fuel.
(21)
(i) Is disregarded in determining whether the mixture is a mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel; and
(ii) Is taken into account in determining whether the mixture contains at least 20 percent biodiesel.
(22)
(23)
(24)
(ii)
(25)
(ii)
(iii)
(c)
(a)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(A) $100,000 in the case of any such item of property of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation; and
(B) $1,000 in any other case.
(ii)
(b)
(i) Each charging port for recharging property;
(ii) Each fuel dispenser for refueling property; or
(iii) Each storage property (for this purpose, a storage system comprised of multiple storage tanks, such as a cascade system, is treated as a single storage property).
(2)
(i) If associated property is directly attributable and traceable to a single item of 30C property, then the cost of such associated property is allocated to such single item of 30C property.
(ii) If associated property is directly attributable and traceable to more than one single item of 30C property, then the cost of such associated property is allocated to such single item of 30C property based on the cost of each single item of 30C property. The total cost of such associated property divided among the 30C properties cannot exceed 100 percent of the cost of such associated property.
(3)
(i) The applicable percentage; multiplied by
(ii) The sum of—
(A) The cost of the single item of 30C property;
(B) The cost of associated property that is directly attributable and traceable to the single item of 30C property (as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section); and
(C) The cost of the ratable share of associated property (as described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section).
(4)
(5)
(6)
(A) The taxable year in which, under the taxpayer's depreciation practice, the period for depreciation with respect to such property begins; or
(B) The taxable year in which such property is placed in a condition or state of readiness and availability for a specifically assigned function, whether in a trade or business or in the production of income.
(ii)
(c)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(ii)
(B)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(ii)
(B) Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the tentative section 30C credit for the personal use portion of the 30C property is the sum of the cost of a single item of 30C property (charging port) and the cost of directly attributable and traceable associated property, multiplied by the personal use portion (60%), and then multiplied by the
(C) Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the tentative section 30C credit for the business use portion of the 30C property is the sum of the cost of a single item of 30C property (charging port) and the cost of directly attributable and traceable associated property, multiplied by the business-use portion (40%), and then multiplied by the applicable percentage (6%). The tentative section 30C credit under paragraph (b)(3) of this section is $5,000 ($1,500 for the charger + $3,500 for all directly attributable and traceable associated property) multiplied by the business-use portion (40%), and then multiplied by the applicable percentage (6%), which equals $120. Because $120 is less than the $40,000 limit in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section ($100,000 × 40%), the final section 30C credit for the business-use portion is $120.
(4)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(5)
(ii)
(B)
(
(6)
(ii)
(7)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(8)
(ii)
(9)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(10)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(11)
(ii)
(12)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(13)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(14)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(15)
(ii)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(i) A project the construction of which began prior to January 29, 2023; or
(ii) A project that meets the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) of the Code and § 1.45-7, the apprenticeship requirements of section 45(b)(8) and § 1.45-8, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 1.45-12, all with respect to the construction of any 30C property within the meaning of section 30C and the section 30C regulations before such 30C property is placed in service.
(2)
(i) The properties are described in one or more common environmental or other regulatory permits;
(ii) The properties are constructed pursuant to a single master construction contract; or
(iii) The construction of the properties is financed pursuant to the same loan agreement.
(3)
(ii)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(e)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(2)
(i) The taxpayer claiming the section 30C credit modifies the property such that the property no longer qualifies as 30C property;
(ii) Unless the property is subject to section 6417(d)(2)(B) of the Code, the depreciable property (other than apportioned-use property) ceases to be used predominantly in a trade or business (that is, 50 percent or more of the use of the 30C property in a taxable year is for use other than in a trade or business);
(iii) For apportioned-use property, the 30C property completely ceases to be used in a trade or business, but continues to be used for personal use; or
(iv) The taxpayer claiming the section 30C credit sells or disposes of the 30C property and the taxpayer knows or has reason to know that the property will be used in a manner described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. Any other sale or disposition (including a disposition by reason of an accident or other casualty) of 30C property is not a recapture event.
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(e)
(e) * * *
(10) * * *
(vi)
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(iv) Property primarily used in the transportation of goods or individuals and not for the production of electricity.
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(iv)
(e) Applicability dates.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * * For purposes of this paragraph (b)(1), if an applicable credit is subject to section 50, then section 50 applies without regard to section 50(b)(3) and (b)(4)(A)(i). If another provision of the Code contains a basis reduction and/or recapture provision outside of section 50 that impacts the available credit (such as sections 30C(e), 45Q(f)(4), and 48(a)(10)), then the rules of that provision of the Code and the regulations issued under that provision of the Code apply, except that any applicable credit continues to be determined without regard to section 50(b)(3) and (4)(A)(i) and by treating any property with respect to which such credit is determined as used in a trade or business of the applicable entity, consistent with section 6417(d)(2) and § 1.6417-2(c).
(e)
(2)
The addition and revision read as follows:
(g) Notification and impact of recapture under section 30C(e)(5).
(k) Applicability dates.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c)
(2)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(k)
(2)
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Proposed rule.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Departmental Offices gives notice of a proposed exemption for a new system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices .413—Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. The Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System is being established for information collected in connection with the implementation of the Executive order of August 9, 2023. The exemption is intended to comply with the legal prohibitions against the disclosure of certain kinds of information and to protect certain information maintained in this system of records.
Written comments must be received by October 21, 2024.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Treasury encourages comments to be submitted via
For general questions and questions regarding privacy issues, please contact: Ryan Law, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622-5710.
On August 9, 2023, the President issued Executive Order 14105, 88 FR 54867 (the Outbound Order), which declares a national emergency to address the threat to the United States posed by countries of concern, which seek to develop and exploit sensitive technologies or products critical for military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities. Among other things, the Outbound Order directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations that require U.S. persons to provide notification of information to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) regarding certain transactions involving a person of a country of concern that is engaged in certain activities involving covered national security technologies and products that may contribute to the threat to the national security of the United States as identified under the Order. The Outbound Order also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations that prohibit certain transactions by a U.S. person involving a person of a country of concern that is engaged in certain activities involving covered national security technologies and products that pose a particularly acute national security threat to the United States. The Outbound Order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to exempt from applicable prohibitions or notification requirements any transaction or transactions determined to be in the national interest of the United States. On August 9, 2023, Treasury issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 88 FR 54961 (published August 14, 2023), to explain initial considerations and seek public comment on implementation of the Order.
On June 21, 2024, Treasury issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to seek public comment on the proposed rule, 89 FR 55846 (published July 5, 2024). Treasury intends to require U.S. persons to provide notification of certain transactions under its implementing regulations. This information would include relevant details on the U.S. person(s) involved in the transaction as well as information on the transaction and the foreign person(s) involved. These notifications would increase the U.S. Government's visibility into transactions by U.S. persons or their controlled foreign entities and involving technologies and products relevant to the threat to the national security of the United States due to the policies and actions of countries of concern. These notifications would also be helpful in highlighting aggregate sector trends and related capital flows as well as informing future policy development. Treasury also intends to require any U.S. person seeking a national interest exemption for a particular transaction to submit information to Treasury regarding the scope of that transaction including, as applicable, the information that would be required for a notification under the implementing regulations. These transactions are the subject of this document.
In a systems of records notice published elsewhere in this issue of the
Treasury, Departmental Offices is hereby giving notice of a proposed rule to exempt the Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2) and the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by 31 CFR 1.23(c).
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), the head of a Federal agency may promulgate rules to exempt a system of records from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the system of records is subject to the exemption contained in section 552(b)(1) of this title. (Freedom of Information Act, exemption (b)(1) protects from disclosure information that has been deemed classified “under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” and is “in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.”)
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the head of a Federal agency may promulgate rules to exempt a system of records from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the system of records contains investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes that are not within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act (which applies to agencies and components thereof that perform as their principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws).
To the extent that this system of records contains classified information protected by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) or investigatory materials compiled for law
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), Treasury proposes that certain records in the above-referenced system of records be exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act. See 31 CFR 1.36.
The following are the reasons why the classified records and investigatory materials contained in the above-referenced system of records may be exempted from various provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (2).
1. 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires an agency to make any accounting of disclosures of records required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(1) available to the individual named in the record upon his or her request. Exemption from this requirement is appropriate because release of the accounting of disclosures of the records in this system could alert individuals whether they have been identified as the subject of an analysis related to the national security interests of the United States, to the existence of the analysis, and reveal the interest on the part of Treasury as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would present a serious impediment to efforts to protect national security interests by giving individuals an opportunity to learn whether they have been identified as subjects of a national security-related analysis. As further described in the following paragraph, access to such knowledge would impair Treasury's ability to carry out its mission, since individuals could:
i. Take steps to avoid analysis;
ii. Inform associates that a national security analysis is in progress;
iii. Learn the nature of the national security analysis;
iv. Learn the scope of the national security analysis;
v. Begin, continue, or resume conduct that may pose a threat to national security upon inferring they may not be part of a national security analysis because their records were not disclosed; or
vi. Destroy information relevant to the national security analysis.
2. 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1) through (4) grant individuals access to records containing information about them and permit them to request amendment of a record pertaining to them and require the agency either to amend the record or note the disputed portion of the record and, if the agency refuses to amend the record, to provide a copy of the individual's statement of disagreement with the agency's refusal, to persons or other agencies to whom the record is thereafter disclosed. Exemption from this requirement is appropriate because access to a portion of the records contained in this system of records could inform individuals whether they have been identified as the subject of an analysis related to the national security interests of the United States, to the existence of the analysis and reveal the interest on the part of Treasury or another agency. Access to the records would present a serious impediment to efforts to protect national security interests by permitting the individual who is the subject of a record to learn whether they have been identified as a subject of a national security-related analysis. Access to such knowledge would impair Treasury's ability to carry out its mission, since individuals could take steps to impede the analysis and avoid detection, including the steps described in paragraphs 1.i. through vi. of this section. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing analysis and impose an impossible administrative burden. The information contained in the system may also include classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to the national security of the United States. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose sensitive security information that could be detrimental to Treasury.
3. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires an agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or Executive order. Exemption from this requirement is appropriate because what information is relevant and necessary may not always be apparent at the time of collection. In the interests of national security, it is appropriate to include a broad range of information that may aid in identifying and assessing the nature and scope of national security threats to the United States. Additionally, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific analysis. In the interests of national security, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of suspicious activity.
4. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) throuh (I) and 5 U.S.C. 552a(f) require an agency to publish the agency procedures whereby individuals can be notified if the system of records pertains to them, how they can gain access to any record pertaining to them in the system of records and contest its content, and the categories of sources of records in the system. Exemption from these requirements is appropriate because, as noted above, this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
Any records from another Treasury system of records or another Executive Branch agency's system of records for which an exemption is claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) that may also be included in this system of records retains the same exempt status as such records have in the system for which such exemption is claimed.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The related information collections have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget on July 8, 2024 under control number: 202407-1505-002.
Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Treasury proposes to amend 31 CFR part 1 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 31 U.S.C. 301, 321; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 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 this information collection received by October 21, 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
FNS updated the forms and burden estimates based on consultations with SNAP-Ed State and implementing agency partners, other Federal agencies, and users of the forms. FNS has refined and streamlined the forms, and included additional instructions, questions, or opportunities for response where users, trainers, and FNS partners indicated areas for improvement. FNS has also made wording changes to fix typographical errors and improve readability. Overall, the changes to the forms are focused on form improvements for the end user.
The SNAP-Ed Intervention Submission Form, FNS-886 (Appendix C), and the SNAP-Ed Intervention Scoring Tool, FNS-885 (Appendix D), provide a uniform and transparent method for submission, review, and scoring of nutrition education, physical activity promotion, and obesity prevention interventions for inclusion in the SNAP-Ed Clearinghouse. SNAP-Ed State and implementing agencies, nutrition education and public health agencies, and other organizations use these voluntary forms to submit interventions for consideration. The SNAP-Ed Intervention Submission Form and Scoring Tool allows SNAP-Ed implementers and the review committee to determine if the intervention submitted for the SNAP-Ed Clearinghouse is evidence-based and uses one or more of the required approaches. These forms support FNS efforts to increase the selection of interventions available in the SNAP-Ed Clearinghouse, improve innovation in service delivery using interventions which reflect the latest research, and respond directly to agencies submitting interventions (submitters) for the SNAP-Ed Clearinghouse.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Health Outcomes and Participant Experience (HOPE) Study. This new information collection will provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) with current information about the population WIC serves, how well WIC services align with participants' needs, and how WIC influences participants' health outcomes. This information will help policymakers and program administrators address service gaps and reduce potential disparities in health outcomes.
Written comments must be received on or before November 18, 2024.
Comments may be sent to the WIC HOPE Study Team, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments may also be submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information on or copies of this information collection should be directed to the WIC HOPE Study Team at
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden on the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides nutritious supplemental foods, nutrition education and counseling, breastfeeding promotion and support, and referrals to healthcare, social services, and other community providers to pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, and infants and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk and in households with a low income. As a preventive public health nutrition program, WIC aims to improve the feeding practices, diet, and health of participants. The first comprehensive national study assessing WIC participants, the WIC Infant Feeding Practices Study (IFPS), began collecting data in August 1994 and followed infants from birth to age 1.
WIC has experienced several notable changes since the last major study was launched. WIC currently serves a more diverse population using more modernized service delivery approaches, such as Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards, online shopping, and virtual visits. WIC has also aligned its nutrition education with the 2020-2025
The WIC Health Outcomes and Participant Experience (WIC HOPE) Study will provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) with current information about the population WIC serves, how well WIC services align with participants' needs, and how WIC influences participants' health outcomes. This information will help policymakers and program administrators address service gaps and reduce potential disparities in health outcomes.
The five study objectives are: (1) conduct new data collection to update the information in WIC IFPS-1 and WIC ITFPS-2 on the feeding practices and behaviors of WIC infants and children, and compare and contrast findings with previous studies; (2) describe participants' WIC site experiences and engagement with WIC technologies such as text messaging, mobile apps, online appointment scheduling, video calling, online nutrition education, shopping assistance apps, and online shopping tools; (3) assess the extent to which WIC benefits used by participants (including food packages, nutrition education and breastfeeding promotion and support, and referrals) are independently associated with feeding practices, diet, and health over time; (4) describe maternal diet, birth, and health outcomes from the pregnancy and postpartum period throughout the study period; and (5) examine the independent association between duration of WIC participation and diet and health outcomes as well as nutrition security.
WIC HOPE is a prospective cohort study that will follow a nationally representative sample of mother-child dyads who enroll in WIC prenatally or shortly after the child is born through the child's fifth birthday. Pregnant women or caregivers of newborns will be recruited through 80 WIC local agencies sampled from across the country. The study will collect data on participants' experiences with WIC, use of WIC benefits, feeding practices, diet, and health at multiple points.
Because the study child is the focal member of the mother-child dyad, mothers (
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Housing Service's (RHS) announces its intention to request a revision for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for the Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program, for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.
Comments on this Notice must be received by November 18, 2024 to be assured consideration.
Adyam Negasi, RD Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250; Tel: 202-221-9298; Email:
OMB regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for renewal and approval.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
The Secretary is authorized under section 510 (k) of the Housing Act of 1949 to prescribe regulations to ensure that these federally funded loans are made to eligible applicants for authorized purposes. The lender must evaluate the eligibility, cost, benefits, feasibility, and financial performance of the proposed project. The Agency collects this information from the lender to determine if funds are being used to meet the goals and mission of Rural Development. The information submitted by the lender to the Agency is used by the Agency to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for Government resources.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Adyam Negasi, Innovation Center, Regulations Management Division, at 202-221-9298, or
U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System.
Notice; request for information (RFI); reopening of comment period.
On July 15, 2024, the CMTS published in the
The comment period for the notice published on July 15, 2024 (89 FR 57389) is reopened. The due date for submitting comments is September 30, 2024.
Please submit any written comments to Docket Number DOT-OST-2024-0044 electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Heather Gilbert, Senior Policy Advisor, U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System; telephone (202) 366-3612; email
All other information in the original RFI from July 15, 2024 (89 FR 57389) remains the same. It can be found at
Issued in Washington, DC.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Colorado Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene a monthly virtual business meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time. The purpose of the meeting is to continue working on its project on public school attendance zones in Colorado, including a potential vote on their report on the same topic.
Wednesday, October 16, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Barbara Delaviez, Designated Federal Official, 202-539-8246, or at
These committee meeting is available to the public through the meeting link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. At the meeting, an open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of the meeting will be available via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 19, 2024.
Fred Baker or Theodora Mattei, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2924 or (202) 482-4834, respectively.
On May 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner
On September 3, 2024, the petitioner submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation.
For the reason stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Notice of application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review for Alaska Longline Cod Commission, Application No. 10-7A001.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA) of the International Trade Administration, has received an application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (Certificate). This notice summarizes the proposed application and seeks public comments on whether the Certificate should be issued.
Amanda Reynolds, Acting Director, OTEA, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325. OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(a), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the application in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.
Written comments should be sent to
Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 10-7A001.”
1. Add the following six products as Export Products within the meaning of section 325.2(j) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(j)):
ALCC plans to export frozen at-sea, headed and gutted, Alaska cod (
ALCC also plans to export byproducts of ALCC frozen-at-sea, headed and gutted Alaska cod, caught via hook-and-line gear: cod heads; cod collars; cod roe; cod chu; cod milt; ray wings; headed and gutted pollock; headed and gutted sablefish; sablefish heads; sablefish collars. The cod heads, cod collars, cod roe, cod chu, and cod milt are derived from parts of the Alaska cod remaining after the heading-and-gutting of the cod to produce frozen-at-sea headed and gutted Alaska cod. The ray wings are derived from various species of skate, which are caught incidentally while targeting Alaska cod. The remaining products are also products and byproducts that are caught incidentally while targeting Alaska cod, except as specified below.
ALCC also plans to export the following products and byproducts caught on longline catcher-processor vessels using longline hook-and-line and longline pot gear: headed and gutted sablefish; sablefish heads; sablefish collars. The catch accrues against sablefish allocations to the Members.
ALCC also plans to export the following products and byproducts caught on longline catcher-processor vessels using longline hook-and-line gear and, when permitted by regulation, longline pot gear: headed, gutted, and tailed Greenland turbot; and turbot heads. The catch accrues against Greenland turbot allocations to the Members.
1. Akulurak LLC, Seattle, WA;
2. Alaskan Leader Fisheries LLC, Lynden, WA;
3. Alaskan Leader Seafoods LLC, Lynden, WA;
4. Alaskan Leader Vessel LLC, Lynden, WA;
5. Aleutian Longline, LLC, Seattle, WA;
6. Aleutian Spray Fisheries, Inc., Seattle, WA;
7. Beauty Bay Washington, LLC, Bothell, WA;
8. Bering Leader Fisheries LLC, Lynden, WA;
9. Bristol Leader Fisheries LLC, Lynden, WA;
10. Bristol Wave Seafoods, LLC, Seattle, WA;
11. Coastal Alaska Premier Seafoods, LLC, Anchorage, AK;
12. Coastal Villages Longline LLC, Anchorage, AK;
13. Deep Sea Fisheries, Inc., Everett, WA;
14. Gulf Mist, Inc., Everett, WA;
15. Gulf Prowler, LLC, Juneau, AK;
16. Kodiak Leader Fisheries LLC, Lynden, WA;
17. Northern Leader Fisheries LLC, Lynden, WA;
18. Romanzof Fishing Company, L.L.C., Seattle, WA;
19. Shelford's Boat, Ltd., Mill Creek, WA;
20. Siu Alaska Corporation, Anchorage, AK;
21. Starfish Reverse, LLC, Seattle, WA;
22. Tatoosh Seafoods, LLC, Kingston, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS received a request from SouthCoast Wind Energy, LLC (SouthCoast Wind; formerly known as Mayflower Wind Energy, LLC) for the renewal of their prior incidental harassment authorization (IHA) (hereinafter, the “initial IHA”) to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. SouthCoast Wind's activities are identical to those covered in the 2023-2024 authorization, and consist of a subset of the initially planned activities. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the previous IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 4, 2024.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and should be submitted via email to
Electronic copies of the original application, renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
Jennifer Gatzke, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal of an IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
○ An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
○ A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
On October 23, 2020, NMFS received a request from SouthCoast Wind (formerly known as Mayflower Wind Energy) seeking authorization to take marine mammals by Level B harassment only incidental to high-resolution geophysical site characterization surveys (HRG) off Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area OCS-A-0521 and along potential submarine export cable routes. NMFS published a notice of the proposed IHA in the
On November 16, 2022, SouthCoast Wind submitted an application for a renewal IHA in order to complete the remaining subset of the planned survey activity that could not be completed under the 2021 IHA. After NMFS determined the application was ineligible for renewal due to the updates in marine mammal density information, on January 13, 2023, SouthCoast submitted an updated request for a standard IHA. That proposed IHA was published in the
On July 1, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of the 2023 IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are a subset of the activities that are covered by the 2023 IHA but were not completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. NMFS has decided to waive the 60 days renewal requirement, recognizing that the renewal IHA, if issued, will expire one year from the expiration date of the underlying IHA, on May 11, 2025, and having ensured that SouthCoast Wind understands that there is a lapse in MMPA authorization coverage between the expiration of the initial IHA and the issuance of any renewal.
SouthCoast Wind did not complete the planned survey scope of work associated with the 2023 IHA prior to its expiration and is planning to complete a subset of the activities during the remainder of 2024-2025. HRG surveys are planned between approximately September 2024 and May 2025, using the same survey equipment, methods and types of vessels as those previously analyzed. The 2024-2025 surveys will also be within the same survey area described in the application for the 2021 and 2023 IHAs (figure 1).
The planned survey trackline, the number of active sound source days (the number of days the vessels will be actively emitting sound into the water column), and vessel days (number of days that the vessels will be present in the area) will be reduced in 2024-2025 compared to those planned under the 2023-2024 IHA. A total of up to 700 kilometers (km) of trackline (500 km in the Lease Area [Inter-Array Cable (IAC) surveys] and 200 km in the Export Cable Corridors (ECC) [potential HDD surveys]) will be surveyed (table 1). On average, approximately 50 km will be surveyed per day within the Lease Area and 15 km within the ECC, resulting in 10 active sound source days in the Lease Area and approximately 14 in the ECC (for a total of approximately 24 active sound source days in the entire project area). The previous IHA application described up to 4 vessels being utilized to conduct the surveys. The 2024-2025 surveys may use up to 4 vessels as well. SouthCoast Wind survey contractors and protected species observer (PSO) contractors will conduct all surveys in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the 2023-2024 IHA. This renewal IHA is identical to the previous IHA, with the exception that fewer trackline kilometers will be surveyed, there will be fewer sound source days, and fewer vessel days.
To facilitate public review and comment on the proposed renewal IHA, refer to the documents related to the previously issued 2021 and 2023 IHAs and we discuss any new or changed information herein. The previous documents include: the notice of the proposed IHA published in the
A detailed description of the marine site characterization survey activities for which take is proposed here may be found in previous
The proposed renewal would be effective from the date of issuance through May 11, 2025 (
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the
The draft 2023 SAR updated the population estimate (Nbest) of North Atlantic right whales from 338 to 340 and annual mortality and serious injury from 31.2 to 27.2. The updated population estimate in the draft 2023 SAR is based upon sighting history through December 2021 (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024). Total annual average observed North Atlantic right whale mortality during the 2017-2021 period was 7.1 animals and annual average observed fishery mortality was 4.6 animals, however, estimates of 27.2 total mortality and 17.6 fishery mortality account for undetected mortality and serious injury (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024). In October 2023, NMFS released a technical report identifying that the North Atlantic right whale population size based on sighting history through 2022 was 356 whales, with a 95 percent credible interval ranging from 346 to 363 (Linden, 2023).
The draft 2023 SARs include updates for additional marine mammal species and stocks (
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which an authorization of incidental take is proposed here may be found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA for the 2021 authorization (86 FR 27393, May 20, 2021). This description was also incorporated by reference in the Notice of the Proposed IHA for the 2023 authorization (88 FR 14335, March 8, 2023), for which this Notice is a Proposed renewal. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the 2023 IHA, recent draft SARs, information on relevant UMEs, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA for the initial authorization (88 FR 14335, March 8, 2023). The source levels applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, marine mammal density data, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the previously issued 2023 IHA. The number of requested takes is reduced (table 3), due to the smaller number of tracklines being surveyed, as indicated above in table 1.
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
1. The Holder must use independent, dedicated, qualified protected species observers (PSOs), meaning that the PSOS must be employed by a third-party observer provided, must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of protected species and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and must be qualified pursuant to section 5(a) of the IHA.
2. The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that mitigation commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.
3. During survey operations involving use of the sparker (
4. Visual monitoring must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic source ceases.
5. Visual PSOs shall conduct visual observations form the most appropriate observation posts using appropriate equipment and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. When two PSOs are required, the PSOs must coordinate to ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel.
6. Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any vessel associated with the survey must be relayed to the PSO team.
7. PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours followed by a break of at least one hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observations per 24-hour period.
8. PSOS shall establish and monitor applicable shutdown zones during use of the sparker source (see below). These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the acoustic source (rather than being based around the vessel itself).
9. Shutdown zones must be as follows:
○ A 500-meter (m) shutdown zone for North Atlantic right whales (NARWs).
○ A 100-m shutdown zone for all other marine mammals (excluding NARWs).
10. Pre-start clearance and ramp up—A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source when technically feasible. Operators should ramp up sources to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power. A 30-minute pre-start clearance observation period of the shutdown zones must occur prior to the start of ramp-up. All operators must adhere to the following pre-start clearance and ramp-up requirements:
○ The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the shutdown zones for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance). During this 30 minute pre-start clearance period the entire shutdown zone must be visible, except as indicated below.
○ Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the source activated.
○ A visual PSO conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed.
○ Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey operations if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable pre-start clearance zone.
○ Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal to which the prestart clearance requirement applies is within the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone during the 30 minute pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (30 minutes for all baleen whale species and sperm whales and 15 minutes for all other species).
○ The pre-start clearance requirement is waived for small delphinids (individuals belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae:
○ If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
○ PSOs must monitor the shutdown zones 30 minutes before and during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon observation of a marine mammal within the applicable shutdown zone.
○ Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Sparker activation may only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances.
○ If the acoustic source is shut down for brief periods (
11. Shutdown requirements:
○ Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for a shutdown of the sparker source if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable shutdown zone.
○ When the sparker source is active and a marine mammal appears within or enters the applicable shutdown zone, the source must be shut down. When shutdown is instructed by a PSO, the source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute resolved only following deactivation.
○ The shutdown requirement is waived for small delphinids (individual belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae:
○ If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
a. Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated after the marine mammal has been observed exiting the applicable shutdown zone or following a clearance period (30 minutes for all baleen whale species and sperm whales and 15 minutes for all other species) with no further detection of the marine mammal.
○ If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone, shutdown must occur.
12.Vessel Strike—Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
○ Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammal. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (species-specific distances detailed below).
○ Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
○ All vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knot speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the protection of North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes. These include all Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) (when in effect), any dynamic management areas (DMA) (when in effect), and Slow Zones. See
○ Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
○ All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m from right whales. If a right whale is sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must steer a course away at 10 knots or less until the 500-m separation distance has been established. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume that it is a right whale and take appropriate action.
○ All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from sperm whales and all other baleen whales.
○ All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
○ When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (88 FR 31678, May 18, 2023) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for marine site characterization surveys and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met. All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (88 FR 31678, May 18, 2023). Below, we describe how we have addressed, with updated information where appropriate, any comments received that specifically pertain to the renewal of the 2023 IHA.
All IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or a renewal, are valid for a period of not more than 1 year. The public has 30 days to comment on proposed IHAs, with a cumulative total of 45 days for IHA renewals. The notice of the proposed IHA published in the
While there would be additional documents submitted with a renewal request, for a qualifying renewal these would be limited to documentation that NMFS would make available and use to verify that the activities are identical or nearly identical to those in the initial IHA such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS would also need to confirm, among other things, that the activities would occur in the same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. The renewal request would also contain a preliminary monitoring report, in order to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period, which includes NMFS' direct notice to anyone who commented on the proposed initial IHA, provides the public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional pertinent information, and comment on whether they think the criteria for a renewal have been met. Combined together, the 30-day public comment period on the initial IHA and the additional 15-day public comment period on the renewal of the same or nearly identical activities, provides the public with a total of 45 days to comment on the potential for renewal of the IHA.
In addition to the IHA renewal process being consistent with all requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the description of the process and express invitation to comment on specific potential renewals in the Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the process through responses to comments such as these, posting of substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public is “invited and encouraged to participate fully in the agency's decision-making process,” as Congress intended.
For more information, NMFS has published a description of the renewal process on our website (available at
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) SouthCoast Wind's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS Office of Protected Resources has proposed to authorize the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA (the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale) and has determined that these activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021). The proposed renewal IHA provides no new information about the effects of the action, nor does it change the extent of effects of the action, or present any other basis to require re-initiation of consultation with NMFS GARFO; therefore, the ESA consultation has been satisfied for the initial IHA and remains valid for the renewal IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to SouthCoast Wind for conducting HRG surveys off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island until May 11, 2025, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Seattle Slip 3 Vehicle Transfer Span (VTS) Replacement Project in Seattle, Washington.
This authorization is effective from September 12, 2024 through September 11, 2025.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Austin Demarest, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On December 19, 2023, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project in Elliott Bay of the Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. Following NMFS' review of the application, WSDOT submitted revised versions on March 4, April 8, April 18, and April 29, 2024. A final revised monitoring plan was submitted on May 14, 2024 and a final revised application was submitted on May 16, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on May 20, 2024. WSDOT's request is for take of 12 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. The proposed IHA was published for public comment on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61064). Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
WSDOT plans to replace the Seattle Slip 3 VTS at Colman Dock which is located in Elliott Bay of the Puget Sound in Seattle, Washington. The purpose of the construction project is to preserve the transportation function of an aging, seismically deficient transfer span. The existing VTS will be removed and replaced with a hydraulic transfer span consisting of steel drilled shafts and a new steel wingwall. In-water construction includes cutting sheet piles, installation and removal of steel piles with a vibratory hammer, and proofing steel piles with an impact hammer to drive them to the maximum depth and ensure load bearing capacity. In-water pile removal and driving with vibratory and impact hammers may result in incidental take by Level B harassment of 12 marine mammal species within Elliott Bay and the Central Puget Sound.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to WSDOT was published in the
The only substantive comment and NMFS' response is provided below, and all public comment letters are available online at:
In the Monitoring and Reporting section of the proposed IHA
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. Survey abundance (as compared to stock or species abundance) is the total number of individuals estimated within the survey area, which may or may not align completely with a stock's geographic range as defined in the SARs. For some species, this geographic area or surveys may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at:
As indicated above, all 12 species in table 1 spatially and temporally co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by WSDOT's project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
The effects of underwater noise from WSDOT's construction activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 61064, July 30, 2024) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from WSDOT's construction activity on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is referenced in this final IHA determination and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 61064, July 30, 2024).
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes may occur by Level B harassment only, in the form behavioral reactions and temporary threshold shift (TTS) for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise from impact and vibratory pile driving and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably like to occur and is authorized.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Acoustic thresholds used in the analysis were discussed in detail in the notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 61064, July 30, 2024) and not repeated here. Please see that notice for additional detail.
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the construction project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected by sound generated from the impact and vibratory pile driving components of this project.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles used in the project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from previous pile driving at WSDOTs Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Project (vibratory removal of 12-inch H-piles), Phase 2 of Colman Dock construction for the Seattle Multimodal Project (impact installation of 24-inch steel piles), and the Ebey Slough Bridge Replacement Project (72-inch steel piles). Each of the projects listed above occurred within the Puget Sound and provided the most suitable source levels due to similar physical habitat characteristics, pile sizes, and pile driving or removal methods (table 3).
Source levels from the Bainbridge Terminal Ferry Project and the Ebey Slough Bridge Replacement Project were used as proxies for the vibratory removal of 14-inch steel H-piles and the vibratory installation of 24, 30, and 78-inch steel pipe piles for the project because source levels for identical pile sizes were unavailable. Results from the vibratory installation of 72-inch piles at the Ebey Slough Bridge Replacement Project showed that source levels ranged between 148 to 166 dB re 1 µPa at 10 m, therefore 174 dB re 1 µPa at 10 m, as proposed for use by WSDOT, was used as a conservative source level estimate for the vibratory installation of 24, 30, and 78-in steel pipe piles (WSDOT 2011). The source level for 14-inch H-piles was assumed to be
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the WSDOTs activities in the absence of specific modelling. The estimated Level B harassment zones for the WSDOTs activities are shown in tables 4 and 5.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional user spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile installation and removal, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool (
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform take incidental to WSDOTs pile driving activities for the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project. Throughout this section the pile installation or removal will be referred to as “pile driving” unless specified otherwise. From 2017 through 2021 WSDOT monitored for marine mammals in Elliott Bay for the Seattle Multimodal Project. During this time, marine mammal monitoring occurred for 377 days. Since the Seattle Multimodal Project occurred in Elliott Bay, WSDOT considered this marine mammal monitoring data to be the most comprehensive and relevant for estimating take for the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project. Therefore, this data compiled all of these monitoring results and calculated total sightings, average sightings per day, and maximum sightings per day for all species of marine mammals that were observed (table 6). WSDOT used their best professional judgement and used this data to estimate take by multiplying maximum sighting per day by 19, which is the maximum number of in-water working days WSDOT estimates it would take to complete the project in a total worst case scenario.
NMFS has carefully evaluated these methods and concludes that it is an accurate and appropriate method for estimating take for WSDOTs activities for this project.
Since Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project construction would occur from August through mid-February, gray whales occurrence is expected to be relatively low. In this context, and given that gray whales are highly conspicuous, we have a high degree of confidence that WSDOT can successfully implement shutdowns as necessary to avoid any potential Level A harassment of gray whales. WSDOT must also monitor the Orca Network and the Whale Report Alert System (WRAS) daily in order to maintain awareness of regional whale occurrence and movements (
Since the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project construction would occur from August through mid-February, minke whale occurrence is expected to be relatively low. In these circumstances, and given that minke whales are highly conspicuous, we have a high degree of confidence that WSDOT can successfully implement shutdowns as necessary to avoid any potential Level A harassment of minke whales. WSDOT must also monitor the Orca Network and the WRAS daily in order to maintain awareness of regional whale occurrence and movements (
The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans for all construction for the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 6 m. It is highly unlikely that any cetacean would enter within 6 m of active pile driving, and no take by Level A harassment for any mid-frequency cetacean is expected to occur. WSDOT must also monitor the Orca Network and the WRAS daily in order to maintain awareness of regional whale occurrence and movements (see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections below). Therefore, take of transient killer whales by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans for all construction of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 6 m. It is highly unlikely that any cetacean would enter within 6 m of active pile driving, and no take by Level A harassment for any mid-frequency cetacean is expected to occur. WSDOT must also monitor the Orca Network and the WRAS daily in order to maintain awareness of regional whale occurrence and movements (see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections below). Therefore, take of bottlenose dolphins by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans for all construction of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 6 m. It is highly unlikely that any cetacean would enter within 6 m of active pile driving, and no take by Level A harassment for any mid-frequency cetacean is expected to occur. WSDOT must also monitor the Orca Network and the WRAS daily in order to maintain awareness of regional whale occurrence and movements (see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections below). Therefore, take of long-beaked common dolphins by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans for all construction of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 6 m. It is highly unlikely that any cetacean would enter within 6 m of active pile driving, and no take by Level A harassment for any mid-frequency cetacean is expected to occur. WSDOT must also monitor the Orca Network and the WRAS daily in order to maintain awareness of regional whale occurrence and movements (
The largest Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans for all construction of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 100 m. Due to the relatively short duration of construction for the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project and infrequent detections of Dall's porpoises, WSDOT estimated that no Dall's porpoises would be likely to enter the Level A harassment zone. Take by Level A harassment of Dall's porpoises is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans is under 100 m. Although harbor porpoises are relatively common in the Puget Sound, we assume that WSDOT would be able to cease construction if harbor porpoises entered the Level A harassment zone before sufficient duration of exposure for PTS to occur. Take by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for Otariids for all construction of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 3 m. It is highly unlikely that any Otariids would enter within 3 m of active pile driving, and no take by Level A harassment for any mid-frequency cetacean is expected to occur. Therefore, take of California sea lions by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for Otariids for all construction of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is less than 3 m. It is highly unlikely that any Otariids would enter within 3 m of active pile driving, and no take by Level A harassment for any mid-frequency cetacean is expected to occur. Therefore, take of steller sea lions by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
The largest Level A harassment zone for high-frequency phocids is under 41 m. Although harbor seals are relatively common in the Puget Sound, we assume that WSDOT would be able to cease construction if harbor seals entered the Level A harassment zone before sufficient duration of exposure for PTS to occur. Take by Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized.
Similar to harbor seals, the largest harassment zone is less than 41 m for all construction activities. Given the anticipated rarity of occurrence for elephant seals, WSDOT does not expect northern elephant seals to enter Level A harassment zones without being detected prior to shutdown. Construction will cease if a northern elephant seal is observed entering Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no take by Level A harassment of northern elephant seals is anticipated or authorized.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
Prior to the start of any in-water construction, WSDOT must establish shutdown zones for all planned activities. Shutdown zones are pre-defined areas within which construction will be halted upon sightings of a marine mammal or in anticipation of a marine mammal entering the established shutdown zones. Pile-driving will not re-commence until all marine mammals are assumed to have cleared these established shutdown zones.
WSDOT must establish shutdown zones for Southern Resident killer whales (SRKWs) and humpback whales (HWs) at the Level B harassment zone for the vibratory removal of 14-in piles at 1,600 m and at 750 m for impact driving 24-in piles (table 4 and table 8). These shutdown zones are the Level B harassment zone rounded up to the nearest 50 m for each pile size and driving method. Shutdown zones for the remaining pile-driving for SRKWs and HWs will be established at 15,410 m, which is equivalent to the maximum Level B harassment area before it reaches land.
The largest Level A harassment zone for the vibratory removal of 14-in piles is 3.2 m for all cetaceans and pinnipeds. However, WSDOT will implement a shutdown zone at 50 m for removal of 14-in piles. The shutdown zones for the
WSDOT will also establish shutdown zones for all other species of marine mammals for which take has not been authorized or for which incidental take has been authorized but the number of authorized takes has already been met. Those zones will be equivalent to Level B harassment zones provided for each activity in table 4.
In addition to the shutdown zones mentioned above, WSDOT proposes to implement shutdown measures for SRKWs and HWs. If SRKWs or HWs are observed within or approaching established shutdown zones (see table 8), WSDOT will shut down pile driving equipment to avoid take of these species. If a killer whale approaches a Level B harassment zone, and it is unknown if it is a SRKW or a Transient killer whale, WSDOT would assume it is a SRKW and implement shutdown measures. Pile driving would only resume if the killer whale could be confirmed as a Transient killer whale.
The monitoring locations for all PSOs during all pile driving activities (described in the Monitoring and Reporting Section) will ensure that the entirety of all shutdown zones are visible. If environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entirety of shutdown zones would not be visible (
All of the harassment zones will be monitored by PSOs to the extent practicable. Established monitoring zones will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals and define clear monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to shutdown zones. The monitoring zones and protocols will enable PSOs to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in project areas and outside of project areas to prepare for potential cessation of pile driving activities should a marine mammal enter a shutdown zone.
Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activities, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs must observe shutdown and monitoring zones for a 30 minute period. The shutdown zone will be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activities may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zones or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. When a marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is present in the Level B harassment zone and authorized take has not been met, activities may begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones must commence. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
Soft-start procedures are used to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors are required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. Soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
A bubble curtain will be employed during impact installation or proofing of steel piles, unless the piles are driven in the dry, or water is less than 3 ft (feet) (0.9 m) in depth. A noise attenuation device is not be required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain or similar measure is used, it must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column. Any other attenuation measure would be required to provide 100 percent coverage in the water column for the full depth of the pile. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring would ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects will prevent full mudline contact.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures, NMFS determined that the established mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities must be conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS' standards and in a manner consistent with the following:
• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and
• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator would be designated. The lead observer would be required to have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction.
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activities subject to this IHA.
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
During all pile driving activities, a minimum of three PSO will monitor shutdown zones during pile driving activities. A total of three PSOs will monitor the area for the vibratory removal 14-in steel H-piles, two PSOs will monitor from the construction site and the other PSO will monitor from Pier 69/70. For the vibratory installation and removal of 24, 30, and 78-in steel pipe piles eight PSOs will monitor shutdown zones. PSOs as described above, one PSO will be stationed on each of the Seattle-Bainbridge Island Ferries (two PSOs in total on ferries), one PSO stationed at Alki Beach Pier on the south end of Elliott Bay, one PSO stationed at Magnolia Viewpoint on the north end of Elliott Bay, one PSO station at Rolling Bay on Bainbridge Island, and another PSO stationed at Rockaway Beach on Bainbridge Island. During impact pile driving 24-in steel pipe piles, two PSOs will be stationed at the construction site and an additional PSO will be stationed at pier 62 at the north end of the SRKW and HW shutdown zones (figure 1). If one of the Seattle-Bainbridge Island Ferries is delayed or inoperable during pile installation described above, then WSDOT must place the second ferry PSO at Creosote Bench Park on Bainbridge Island as an alternate monitoring location (figure 2).
Monitoring must be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, observers must record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the PSOs will contact the Orca Network to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. Daily sightings information will be checked several times a day. The Orca Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the United States and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline, and the British Columbia Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology, and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species.
WSDOT also participates in the Whale Report Alert System (WRAS/WhaleReport Alert System—Ocean Wise). In October 2018, the Ocean Wise Sightings Network (formerly the B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network) launched an alert system that broadcasts details of whale presence to large commercial vessels. Information on whale presence is obtained from real-time observations reported to the Ocean Wise Sightings Network via the WhaleReport app. The alerts inform shipmasters and pilots of cetacean occurrence in their vicinity. This awareness better enables vessels to undertake adaptive mitigation measures, such as slowing down or altering course in the presence of cetaceans, to reduce the risk of collision and disturbance.
All WSDOT ferry vessel crews have been trained in the use of WRAS, and input new sightings of cetaceans so data would be available to other vessels and to PSOs on the project. The lead PSO will check the WRAS sightings regularly during the day to be aware of cetaceans approaching the shutdown zones.
With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT would be able to get additional real-time information on the presence or absence of cetaceans prior to start of in-water construction each day.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The marine mammal report would include an overall description of
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (a) How many and what type of piles were driven or removed and the method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance.
For each observation of a marine mammal, the following must be reported:
• Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting;
• Time of sighting;
• Identification of the animal(s) (
• Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the pile being driven or hole being drilled for each sighting;
• Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
• Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition,
• Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports would constitute the final reports. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS' comments is required to be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data must be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, WSDOT must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (
The report must include the following information:
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving and removal activities associated with this project have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. The activities for this project may result in incidental take, in the form of Level B harassment, from underwater sound generated from pile driving or removal. Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving activities are underway.
The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 1, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar in nature. Where there are special circumstances for a species or stock (
NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock. The following factors support negligible impact determinations for all affected stocks.
No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized incidental to the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project. However, take by Level B
The projects are also not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected (with no known particular importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Aside from the biologically important area (BIA) for gray whales described below, there are no known areas of importance for other marine mammals, such as feeding or pupping areas, in the project area.
For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited, relatively confined area (Elliott Bay within central Puget Sound) of the stocks' ranges. Given the availability of suitable habitat nearby, any displacement of marine mammals from the project areas is not expected to affect marine mammals' fitness, survival, and reproduction due to the limited geographic area that will be affected in comparison to the much larger habitat for marine mammals in Puget Sound. Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact to the marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat through use of mitigation measures described herein. Some individual marine mammals in the project areas may be present and be subject to repeated exposure to sound from pile driving on multiple days. However, these individuals would likely return to normal behavior during gaps in pile driving activity. The Seattle waterfront is a busy area and monitoring reports from previous in water pile driving activities indicate that marine mammals remain in Elliott Bay and the central Puget Sound area throughout pile driving activities. Therefore, any behavioral effects of repeated or long duration exposures are not expected to negatively affect survival or reproductive success of any individuals. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any effects on rates of reproduction and survival of the stock.
The Puget Sound is part of a BIA for gray whales as they migrate between the Arctic and Mexico (Calambokidis
There was an unusual mortality event (UME) for gray whales from 2018 through 2023 (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of this notice). However, we do not expect authorized takes for this project to have any additional affects to reproduction or survival. As mentioned previously, no take by Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality is expected. Takes authorized by Level B harassment of gray whales would be in the form of behavioral disturbance. The results from necropsies showed evidence that gray whale nutritional condition was poor during the UME. The area that would be temporarily impacted from construction does not overlap with the gray whale feeding BIA in the northern Puget Sound. Therefore, the construction associated with the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is unlikely to disrupt any critical behaviors (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized for all 12 marine mammal species;
• Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral disturbance, primarily resulting in avoidance of the project areas around where impact or vibratory pile driving is occurring, and some low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprint of the activities;
• Nearby areas of similar habitat value within Puget Sound are available for marine mammals that may temporarily vacate the project areas during construction activities for both projects;
• Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations from either project;
• The number of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is relatively low for all stocks for both projects;
• The ensonifed areas from the project is very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and will not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat, or cause more than minor impacts in any BIAs or any other areas of known biological importance;
• The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat from the project;
• The efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activities on all species and stocks for the project; and
• Monitoring reports from similar work in Puget Sound that have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species that could be impacted by the specified activities from the project.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS determined that the total marine mammal take from the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
For all species and stocks other than killer whales from the West Coast Transient stock, the authorized take is below one-third of the stock abundance. The authorized take of Transient killer whales as a proportion of the stock abundance is greater than one-third, if all takes are assumed to occur for different individuals. The project area represents a small portion of the stock's range from Alaska to California (Muto
Based on the analysis contained herein of the construction activities (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS determined that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is expected or authorized for this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of this IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
NMFS has issued an IHA to WSDOT for the potential harassment of small numbers of 12 marine mammal species incidental to the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement project in Seattle, Washington, that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements.
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA).
Notice of public availability.
In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency hereby advises the public of the availability of the FY 2020 Service Contract Inventory. This analysis provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY2022. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. This inventory analysis and plan have been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, and December 19, 2011, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). CSOSA's FY2022 Service Contract Inventory Analysis, and the FY2023 Service Contract Inventory Plan is available on CSOSA's website at:
Reggie James, Senior Procurement Executive, Associate Director, Office of Administration, 800 N Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC 20002, at (202) 220-5707 or
National Board for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
Notice of a meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions to access or participate in the National Board for Education Sciences (hereafter referred to as NBES or Board) open meeting scheduled for October 9 and October 10, 2024. This notice provides information about the meeting to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meeting and/or how to provide written comment(s).
The NBES meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 9, 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, October 10, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be conducted in person at the Potomac Center Plaza building, 550 12th Street SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20202, and virtually via Microsoft Teams.
Ellie Pelaez, DFO for NBES, U.S. Department of Education, IES: 550 12th Street SW, Office 4126-1, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 987-0359, email:
At 12:30 p.m., the public meeting will begin with a call to order, remarks by the Chairwoman of the Board, member roll call, Board member approval of meeting transcript from the May 13, 2024, meeting, and member approval of meeting agenda.
The meeting continues with presentations from the Acting Director of IES, each of the IES Centers and the IES Office of Science. A discussion among board members of IES' ongoing work and theory of change will follow. Meeting will adjourn for the day at 5:00 p.m.
The public meeting will begin with the Chairwoman's call to order and roll call at 9:00 a.m. Board members will revisit any business from the previous day's meeting, and a discussion of Congressional legislation impacting IES will follow. Then members will hear from IES Staff and contractors who work on the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) Regional Educational Laboratories program (RELs). Discussion among board members will follow.
At 1:00 p.m. members will conduct any additional business including next steps, discussion of future meetings, and closing remarks. The meeting will adjourn at 2:00 p.m.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Chief Accountant of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to issue an accounting release (attached) to provide guidance on the accounting for the transferability of income tax credits related to certain energy projects as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which allows entities to monetize such credits via transfers to independent third parties for cash.
This proposed accounting release is not intended to prejudice the rate treatment of the transfer of income tax credits in any proceeding before the Commission.
The Commission has reviewed the proposed Accounting Release. At the conclusion of the comment period specified at the end of this notice, the Chief Accountant will consider the comments received, make any necessary changes, and issue the final accounting release. The effective date of the final accounting release will be the day that it is issued.
Specifically, comments on the following accounting topics are requested:
1. The proposed accounting release would require an entity to treat the transfer of income tax credits as a nonoperating activity, including the revenue received from the transfer of the income tax credit (
2. The proposed accounting release would require an entity, upon the transfer of its income tax credits to an independent third party, to derecognize all associated balances previously recorded on its books, including associated accumulated deferred income tax (ADIT) balances. If you disagree with this conclusion, please provide the basis for your disagreement.
3. The proposed accounting release would require an entity that purchases a non-investment tax credit, such as a
4. The proposed accounting release would require an entity that purchases an
All interested parties are invited to submit comments on this proposed accounting release using the “eFiling” link at
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 allows for transferability of income tax credits related to certain energy projects and permits entities to monetize such credits via transfers to independent third parties for cash.
Accordingly, this accounting guidance requires an entity to treat the revenue received from the transfer of the income tax credit (
An entity that purchases a
This guidance is for accounting purposes only and is not intended to prejudice the rate treatment of the transfer of income tax credits in any proceeding before the Commission.
Appendix A provides an example that describes the accounting for transferability of an investment tax credit, and an example that describes the accounting for transferability of a non-investment tax credit such as a production tax credit.
The
The
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Lock 47 Hydro, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 19, 2024, and provided public notice of its request on July 25, 2024, and August 1, 2024. In a letter dated September 12, 2024, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved 47 Hydro, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Lock 47 Hydro, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Lock 47 Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
You may register online at
o. The applicant states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for an original license for Project No. 15337.
p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
On October 27, 2022, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) filed an application for a new major license for the 7.1-megawatt Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (Beaver Falls Project; FERC No. 1922). The Beaver Falls Project is located on Beaver Falls Creek in Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska. The project currently occupies 478.4 acres of United States lands administered by U.S. Forest Service.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 10, 2023, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On January 5, 2024, the Commission issued a notice indicating that staff intended to prepare a draft and final Environmental Assessment (EA). However, upon further review, staff intends to prepare a single EA on the application to relicense the Beaver Falls Project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available
By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing the EA. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Golbahar Mirhosseini at
On September 10 and 11, 2024, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) convened a staff-led workshop to discuss innovations and efficiencies in generator interconnection processes.
All interested persons are invited to file post-workshop comments on issues raised during the workshop that they believe would benefit from further discussion. Parties are also invited to provide comments on the questions presented in the workshop agenda.
Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. To facilitate the processing of comments, we urge commenters to organize their comments by panel topic and question presented at the workshop and to be brief. In addition, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples and quantitative data in support of their answers. Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2024.
Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.
For more information about this Notice, please contact:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), General Performance Reporting for Assistance Programs (EPA ICR Number 2802.01, OMB Control Number 2090-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OCFO-2024-0107, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Aarti Iyer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; email address:
This is a request for approval of a new collection. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Exchange Network Grants Progress Reports (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 2207.09, OMB Control Number 2025-0006) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through 11/30/2024. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 21, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number [EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0037 to EPA, online using
Erin McGown, Information Engagement Division, Data Interoperability Partnership Branch, 2823 T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2142; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2024. 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.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
The Semi-Annual Progress Report Form has 1.2 estimated hours per Form and is completed twice a year by an estimated 149 respondents. Therefore, the total annual respondent burden hours for this form are 357.6. The IT Component and Project Registration Form has 2 estimated hours per Form and EPA estimates that 38 will be completed annually. Therefore, the total annual respondent burden hours for this form are 76. The Final Progress Report Form has 1.65 estimated hours per Form and EPA estimates that 38 will be completed annually. Therefore, the total annual respondent burden hours for this form are 59.4.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 18, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
In July 2024, the Commission adopted rules requiring manufacturers of covered apparatus and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to make closed captioning display settings readily accessible to individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. The Commission will determine whether settings are readily accessible to consumers by evaluating the following factors: proximity, discoverability, previewability, and consistency and persistence. The compliance deadline will be after the Office of Management and Budget completes its review of any new or modified information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act or August 17, 2026, whichever is later. The previously approved burden estimates set forth below for requests for a Commission determination of technical feasibility of apparatus closed caption requirements, requests for a Commission determination of achievability of apparatus closed caption requirements, and complaints alleging violations of the apparatus closed caption requirements, all are sufficient to encompass any such filings resulting from the new rule. The
The information collection requirements consist of:
(a) Mechanism for information about video programming subject to the IP closed captioning requirements.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules, VPOs and VPDs must agree upon a mechanism to make information available to VPDs about video programming that becomes subject to the requirements of 47 CFR 79.4 on an ongoing basis. VPDs must make a good faith effort to identify video programming that must be captioned when delivered using IP using the agreed upon mechanism.
For example, VPOs and VPDs may agree on a mechanism whereby the VPOs provide captions or certifications that captions are not required, and update those certifications and provide captions when captions later become required. A VPD may rely in good faith on a certification by a VPO that the programming need not be captioned if: (1) the certification includes a clear and concise explanation of why captions are not required; and (2) the VPD is able to produce the certification to the Commission in the event of a complaint. VPOs may provide certifications for specific programming or a more general certification, for example, for all programming covered by a particular contract.
VPDs may seek Commission determinations that other proposed mechanisms provide adequate information for them to rely on in good faith by filing an informal request and providing sufficient information for the Commission to make such determinations.
(b) Contact information for the receipt and handling of written closed captioning complaints.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(iii), VPDs must make their contact information available to end users for the receipt and handling of written IP closed captioning complaints. The required contact information includes the name of a person with primary responsibility for IP captioning issues and who can ensure compliance with these rules, as well as the person's title or office, telephone number, fax number, postal mailing address, and email address. VPDs must keep this information current and update it within 10 business days of any change. The Commission expects that such contact information will be prominently displayed in a way that it is accessible to all end users. A general notice on the VPD's website with such contact information, if provided, must be provided in a location that is conspicuous to viewers.
(c) Petitions for exemption based on economic burden.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.4(d), a VPO or VPD may petition the Commission for a full or partial exemption from the closed captioning requirements for IP-delivered video programming based upon a showing that they would be economically burdensome. Petitions for exemption must be supported with sufficient evidence to demonstrate economic burden (significant difficulty or expense). The Commission will consider four specific factors when determining economic burden and any other factors the petitioner deems relevant, along with any available alternatives that might constitute a reasonable substitute for the closed captioning requirements. Petitions and subsequent pleadings must be filed electronically.
The Commission will place such petitions on public notice. Comments or oppositions to the petition may be filed electronically within 30 days after release of the public notice of the petition, and must include a certification that the petitioner was served with a copy. The petitioner may reply to any comments or oppositions filed within 20 days after the close of the period for filing comments or oppositions, and replies must include a certification that the commenting or opposing party was served with a copy. Upon a finding of good cause, the Commission may lengthen or shorten any comment period and waive or establish other procedural requirements. Petitions and responsive pleadings must include a detailed, full showing, supported by affidavit, of any facts or considerations relied on.
(d) Complaints alleging violations of the closed captioning rules for IP-delivered video programming.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.4(e), a written complaint alleging a violation of the closed captioning rules for IP-delivered video programming may be filed with the Commission or with the VPD
If the complaint is filed first with the VPD, the VPD must respond in writing to the complainant within 30 days after receipt of a closed captioning complaint. If a VPD fails to respond timely, or the response does not satisfy the consumer, the complainant may re-file the complaint with the Commission within 30 days after the time allotted for the VPD to respond. If a consumer re-files the complaint with the Commission (after filing with the VPD) and the complaint satisfies the requirements, the Commission will forward the complaint to the named VPD, as well as to any other VPD and/or VPO that Commission staff determines may be involved, who then must respond in writing to the Commission and the complainant within 30 days after receipt of the complaint from the Commission.
If the complaint is filed first with the Commission and the complaint satisfies the requirements, the Commission will forward the complaint to the named VPD and/or VPO, and to any other VPD and/or VPO that Commission staff determine may be involved, who must respond in writing to the Commission and the complainant within 30 days after receipt of the complaint from the Commission. In response to a complaint, a VPD and/or VPO must provide the Commission with sufficient records and documentation. The Commission will review all relevant information provided by the complainant and the subject VPDs and/or VPOs, as well as any additional information the Commission deems relevant from its files or public sources. The Commission may request additional information from any relevant entities when, in the estimation of Commission staff, such information is needed to investigate the complaint or adjudicate potential violation(s) of Commission rules. When the Commission requests additional information, parties to which such requests are addressed must provide the requested information in the manner and within the time period the Commission specifies.
(e) Requests for Commission determination of technical feasibility of apparatus closed caption requirements.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(a), as of January 1, 2014, all digital apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming that uses a picture screen of any size must be equipped with built-in closed caption decoder circuitry or capability designed to display closed-captioned video programming, if technically feasible. Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(e), manufacturers of apparatus subject to paragraph (a) of the rule and MVPDs will be required to ensure that consumers are able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning on apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound, if such apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States and uses a picture scree of any size, if technically feasible. If new apparatus or classes of apparatus for viewing video programming emerge on which it would not be technically feasible to include closed captioning or readily accessible user display settings for closed captioning, parties may raise that argument as a defense to a complaint or, alternatively, file a request under 47 CFR 1.41 for a Commission determination of technical feasibility before manufacturing or importing the product.
(f) Requests for Commission determination of achievability of apparatus closed caption requirements.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(a), as of January 1, 2014, all digital apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming that use a picture screen less than 13 inches in size must be equipped with built-in closed caption decoder circuitry or capability designed to display closed-captioned video programming, only if doing so is achievable. In addition, pursuant to 47 CFR 79.104(a), as of January 1, 2014, all apparatus designed to record video programming must enable the rendering or the pass through of closed captions such that viewers are able to activate and de-activate the closed captions as the video programming is played back, only if doing so is achievable. Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(e), the requirement that closed captioning display settings are readily accessible will only apply to apparatus that use a picture screen of less than 13 inches in size if compliance is achievable.
Manufacturers of such apparatus and MVPDs may petition the Commission, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.41, for a full or partial exemption from the closed captioning requirements before manufacturing or importing the apparatus or may assert as a response to a complaint that these requirements, in full or in part, are not achievable. Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(b)(3), such a petition or response must be supported with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance is not achievable (meaning with reasonable effort or expense) and the Commission will consider four specific factors when making such determinations.
(g) Petitions for purpose-based waivers of apparatus closed caption requirements.
Manufacturers seeking certainty prior to the sale of a device may petition the Commission, pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(b)(4), for a full or partial waiver of the closed captioning requirements based on one of the following provisions:
(i) The apparatus is primarily designed for activities other than receiving or playing back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound; or
(ii) The apparatus is designed for multiple purposes, capable of receiving or playing back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound but whose essential utility is derived from other purposes.
(h) Complaints alleging violations of the apparatus closed caption requirements.
Consumers may file written complaints alleging violations of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 79.101-79.104, requiring apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record video programming to be equipped with built-in closed caption decoder circuitry or capability designed to display closed captions, and requiring that consumers are able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning on covered apparatus. A written complaint filed with the Commission must be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau through the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, U.S. Mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile. Such complaints should include certain information about the complainant and the alleged violation. The Commission may forward such complaints to the named manufacturer or provider, as well as to any other entity that Commission staff determines may be involved, and may request additional information from any relevant parties when, in the estimation of Commission staff, such information is needed to investigate the complaint or adjudicate potential violations of Commission rules.
(i) Application programming interface (API) notification to application developers.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.103(e)(1)(iv)(A), with regard to an MVPD's provision of navigation devices, it will be required to expose closed caption display settings via an API or similar method that an over-the-top
(j) Customer notice of new operating systems.
The
11:44 a.m. on Tuesday, September 17, 2024.
The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC.
Closed.
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's resolution, supervision, and corporate activities. In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), by the unanimous vote of Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Vice Chairman Travis Hill, Director Jonathan McKernan, Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable;4 that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A), (c)(9)(B), (c)(10), of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A), (c)(9)(B), (c)(10)).
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
Notice of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is issuing this notice to inform the public of the names of the members of the Agency's Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.
This SES Performance Review Board is effective September 19, 2024.
Anna Davis, General Counsel, 202-606-3737,
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
The members of FMCS's Performance Review Board are:
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, GSA invites the public to comment on a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding contractor qualifications and financial information.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Bryon Boyer, Procurement Analyst, at
GSA requires prospective contractors to submit certain financial information in order for a contracting officer to make a determination that such prospective contractors are financially responsible for an award, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.103(a) and 9.104-1 and also the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) 509.105-1(a). GSA Form 527, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information is used to achieve
A 60-day notice published in the
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice and request for public comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, GSA invites the public to comment on a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement for a placement of orders clause, and an ordering information provision.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
If your comment cannot be submitted using
Ms. Vernita Misidor, Procurement Analyst, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, by phone at 202-357-9681 or by email at
GSA has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of the Federal Acquisition Service's (FAS's) Special Order Program items. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of various types of FAS contracts.
As such, the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 516.506 specifically directs contracting officers to insert 552.216-72, Placement of Orders, and 552.216-73, Ordering Information, when the contract authorizes FAS and other activities to issue delivery or task orders. This clause and provision includes information reporting requirements for Offerors to receive electronic orders through computer-to-computer Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
CDC has modified its structure. This notice announces the reorganization of the Office of Laboratory Science and Safety (OLSS). OLSS was retitled to the Office of Laboratory Systems and Response (OLSR) and additional organizational updates were approved.
This reorganization of OLSS was approved by the Director of CDC on September 13, 2024, and became effective September 13, 2024.
Victoria Olson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H24-2, Atlanta, GA 30329. Telephone: 404-639-7466; Email:
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 89 FR 68442-68443, dated August 26, 2024) is amended to reflect the reorganization of Office of Laboratory Science and Safety, Immediate Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Specifically, the changes are as follows:
I. Under Part C, Section C-B, Organization and Functions, make the following changes:
II. Under Part C, Section C-B, Organization and Functions, after the Office of Laboratory Science and Safety (CAN) delete and insert the following:
Office of Laboratory Systems and Response (CAN). To carry out its mission, the Office of Laboratory Systems and Response (OLSR): (1) provides cross-cutting laboratory products, services, and systems (quality, safety, informatics, workforce, response readiness) support for CDC laboratories that conduct research, surveillance, and routine and emergency diagnostic testing, and develop diagnostic tests; (2) collaborates with the nation's laboratories (public health, clinical, industry, academic, and other government) to ensure scientifically advanced, timely, and efficient laboratory response and diagnostic testing; (3) provides scientific, technical, and managerial expertise and national leadership in the development and enhancement of laboratory quality, safety, informatics, and training and workforce development programs; (4) ensures regulatory compliance and monitors implementation and evaluation of the laboratory safety and quality management programs across CDC; (5) oversees the development and distribution of agency guidance on diagnostic testing and clinical laboratory operations and interpretation of laboratory regulations; and (6) bridges and strengthens the nation's clinical and public health laboratory system by continually improving quality and safety, response readiness, informatics and data science capability, and workforce competency.
Office of the Director (CAN1). (1) serves as the home office of the Associate Director for Laboratory Science and Safety (ADLSS) who serves as the single point of laboratory accountability for all laboratory systems at the agency; (2) provides scientific, technical, and managerial expertise and leadership in the development and enhancement of laboratory systems (quality, safety, informatics, training and workforce development, and response readiness); (3) oversees and monitors the development, implementation, and evaluation of the laboratory safety and quality management programs across CDC; (4) provides expertise and consultation in interpreting and complying with regulations (
Office of Laboratory Quality and Safety (CAN12). (1) provides consultation, high-level oversight, and expertise for policy development and implementation of laboratory safety and quality management activities; (2) develops, selects, deploys, and implements agency-level plans, policies, manuals, and tools for laboratory quality and safety standards; (3) assesses effectiveness of agency-level laboratory quality and safety standards; (4) develops and distributes guidance and interpretation of the CLIA regulations for the CDC Infectious Disease (ID) laboratories; (5) provides data analysis, summary reports, and technical assistance for laboratory leadership; (6) ensures CDC laboratory compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and standards (
Division of Laboratory Systems (CANC). The mission of the Division of Laboratory Systems (DLS) is to ensure the effectiveness of the Laboratory Response Network and to improve public health, patient outcomes, and health equity by advancing laboratory systems. To carry out this mission, DLS: (1) functions as the CDC lead for the nation's Laboratory Response Network (LRN), and oversees CDC's role in this network before and during infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics; (2) advances the state of the national clinical laboratory system's quality and safety, data exchange, preparedness and response capacity, and workforce competency; (3) strengthens the capacity of the nation's public health and clinical laboratory system, including diagnostic testing facilities, to prepare for and respond to infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics; (4) engages, supports, and bolsters the work of the nation's public health and clinical laboratory community; (5) engages and supports partners and professional organizations in the clinical laboratory and diagnostic manufacturing industries as well as across the U.S. Government; (6) collaborates with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and FDA to implement the federal CLIA program; (7) manages and executes CDC's responsibilities for the federal CLIA program; (8) advances the nation's capacity to electronically exchange clinical and public health laboratory testing data through the use of standards and common infrastructure; (9) develops and distributes state-of-the-art laboratory training and development courses and tools to strengthen CDC's as well as the nation's clinical and public health laboratory workforce; (10) manages the catalog of intramural core laboratory quality, safety, and regulatory compliance training courses; (11) fosters collaborations and cross-cutting activities with other CDC CIOs and external organizations to support the mission, activities, and operations of DLS; (12) provides stewardship of division procurement, materials management, interagency agreements, cooperative agreements, and extramural resources; (13) addresses policy issues that affect or could affect the National Laboratory Response System, other DLS programs and activities, and clinical and public health laboratory operations; (14) provides communications, web support, social media presence, responses to media requests, and promotion and outreach efforts to clinical and public health laboratories on emergency response and testing through the CDC's Laboratory Outreach and Communication System; and (15) responds to requests from other CDC programs for technical assistance relating to DLS capabilities.
Office of the Director (CANC1). The DLS Office of the Director: (1) provides leadership and guidance on the development of strategic goals, objectives, and milestones to advance the vision and mission of DLS and OLSR, (2) develops administrative policies, processes, and operations for the division; (3) ensures that health equity principles are applied in all DLS activities; (4) works with the OLSR Office of the Director (OD) to ensure that spending plans and budgets are executed and aligned with the strategic priorities of the division; (5) works with the OLSR OD to establish and maintain a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible workplace; (6) provides DLS communications resources, including web support, writing and editing services, social media presence, and promotion and outreach efforts to clinical and public health laboratories; (7) provides scientific guidance and resources, regulatory oversight, clearance review, and coordination with DLS staff to support, promote, and ensure scientific quality and integrity of DLS products and programs; (8) fosters existing and new partnerships with the clinical and public health laboratory and testing community, other CDC programs, federal and state agencies, and professional organizations to further DLS mission and goals; (9) liaises with CMS and FDA CLIA program partners, CLIA-approved accreditation organizations and proficiency testing programs, and other CDC programs and offices for CLIA-related issues; and (10) analyzes and provides guidance on policy-related issues that affect DLS and the broader public and clinical laboratory community, and ensures that DLS activities, communications, and materials are aligned with agency policy.
Laboratory Readiness and Informatics Branch (CANCB). The mission of the Laboratory Readiness and Informatics Branch (LRIB) is to serve as CDC's lead for implementing testing strategies in the LRN and commercial laboratories as well as to provide guidance and support to enhance laboratory data exchange before and during infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. To carry out its mission, LRIB: (1) strengthens the nation's clinical testing and results reporting capabilities and capacity, especially before and during public health emergencies, through programs, partnerships, and by implementing strategies to improve electronic laboratory data exchange; (2) coordinates and supports preparedness and response activities of public health laboratories (PHLs) that are members of the LRN for biological threats; (3) develops and maintains partnerships for expanded emergency diagnostic testing
Quality and Safety Systems Branch (CANCC). The mission of the Quality and Safety Systems Branch (QSSB) is to improve the quality and safety of laboratory testing in clinical and public health settings across the nation. To carry out its mission, QSSB: (1) collaborates across CDC and engages broadly with external partners, including other federal agencies, state agencies and programs, and professional organizations; (2) develops laboratory quality and safety standards, guidelines, and recommendations in collaboration with partners; (3) promotes the adoption of these products by clinical and public health laboratories; (4) provides scientific and technical support for the national Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 program to ensure the quality and safety of clinical and public health laboratory testing; (5) hosts and manages the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) and its workgroups on behalf of a tri-agency partnership among CDC, CMS, and FDA; (6) provides expertise in the development and revision of CLIA technical standards and voluntary guidelines for laboratory quality and safety; (7) provides quality and safety subject matter expertise to the DLS Training and Workforce Development Branch for the development of training courses for external clinical and PHLs; (8) leads the Next Generation Sequencing Quality Initiative to develop adaptive quality management systems that support next generation sequencing workflows; (9) leads the implementation of biorisk management system standards for the safety of laboratory and testing professionals and their communities; (10) advances the integration of laboratory expertise in healthcare systems to improve the accuracy of diagnoses and to reduce diagnostic errors; (11) develops, promotes, and implements data science approaches for improved use of large and complex data sets in support of adherence to CLIA standards; and (12) leverages data acquired from large health databases to evaluate laboratory testing practices, capabilities, capacity, and public health outcomes.
Training and Workforce Development Branch (CANCD). The mission of the Training and Development Branch (TWDB) is to strengthen laboratory practice and systems through strategic, innovative training, and leadership of initiatives to recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, well-prepared laboratory workforce. To carry out its mission, TWDB: (1) develops, promotes, and disseminates laboratory capacity-building resources that enhance CDC's and the clinical laboratory community's ability to combat emerging threats, learn evolving practices, and stay current with the newest standards and technologies; (2) designs and disseminates innovative training on laboratory core science, quality, safety, informatics, and emergency preparedness for CDC and the U.S. clinical and public health laboratories and the testing community—including eLearning, printable and video job aids, live webinars, Training of Trainers programs, and virtual reality courses that build learners' skills in a safe, simulated laboratory environment; (3) engages clinical and public health laboratory professionals and testers in non-laboratory settings and connects them to CDC and to each other to rapidly identify and respond to urgent training needs and sustain a capacity-building community; (4) develops just-in-time training for an integrated network of CDC, domestic, and international laboratories on how to respond to biological and chemical threats and other high-priority public health emergencies; (5) leverages expertise in instructional design, multimedia production, evaluation, and project management to rapidly identify and prioritize training needs, select the optimal format for a given training goal, audience, and timeline, and efficiently develop laboratory training that meets CDC Quality Training Standards and Section 508 standards for learners with disabilities; (6) maintains OneLab Rapid Education And Capacity-building Hub (REACH), a free, publicly accessible learning management system tailored to the needs of CDC and U.S. clinical laboratory professionals; (7) facilitates site-specific training and increases CDC and U.S. clinical laboratories' capacity to sustain their own workforce development programs; (8) develops, delivers, and maintains a catalog of quality, safety, and regulatory affairs training informed by agency-specific policies and guidelines and tailored to the needs of CDC laboratory staff; (9) designs and delivers hands-on training at CDC's laboratory training facilities; (10) provides leadership and support of the laboratory workforce through sustainable initiatives that strengthen recruitment, retention, management, and training; (11) increases awareness of and access to laboratory education and training opportunities among under-represented groups and communities to increase diversity within the laboratory workforce and ultimately advance health equity; (12) develops frameworks, models, and resources that support competency-based laboratory training; and (13) evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of laboratory education, training, and workforce development programs to ensure the effective knowledge transfer and skills attainment to improve laboratory practice.
Division of Core Laboratory Services and Response (CAND). The mission of the Division of Core Laboratory Services and Response (DCLSR) is to provide products, services, and specialized expertise to CDC programs in support of emergency response activities, laboratory research, and laboratory operations. To carry out its mission, DCLSR: (1) provides laboratory support to outbreak responses through sample accessioning, pre-clinical processing of diagnostic specimens, surge testing capacity, and long-term sample management, including the CDC Biorepository; (2) provides laboratory supplies, glassware, mammalian tissue cultures, microbiological media, special reagents, and other laboratory materials in support of research and service activities to laboratories and CDC investigators; (3) promotes animal welfare and improves the quality and integrity of animal-based research by engaging in independent and collaborative research, providing state-of-the-art training to researchers and partners, and offering a broad range of fully integrated professional veterinary services; (4) works with CDC pathogen specific programs and public health partners in test design and evaluation, including innovative and novel diagnostic tests and assays (molecular,
Office of the Director (CAND1). (1) manages, directs, and coordinates the activities of DCLSR; (2) provides leadership and guidance on the development of strategic goals, objectives, and milestones to advance the vision and mission of DCLSR; (3) distributes investigational and licensed drugs and unique biologicals (antitoxins) to approved physicians for the treatment of rare, tropical, or exceptional diseases; (4) develops administrative policies, processes, and operations for the division; (5) ensures that health equity principles are applied in all DCLSR activities; (6) works to ensure that spending plans and budgets are executed and aligned with the strategic priorities of the division; (7) works with OLSR OD to establish and maintain a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible workplace; (8) provides scientific, business, and policy oversight and guidance for all programs and activities housed in the division; and (9) works closely with other CIOs during outbreak investigations and on an ongoing basis, providing support, guidance, collaboration, and expertise.
Biotechnology Core Facility Branch (CANDB). (1) serves a vital function at CDC, enabling rapid, high-quality and state-of-the-art sequencing services for infectious and biothreat agents, environmental, human, animal, and vector species in support of the agency's public health mission; (2) provides qualitative and quantitative proteomic analyses (identification of expressed proteins by mass spectrometry) and analysis of functionally relevant post-translational modifications of proteins; (3) provides mass spectrometry-based positive identification of bacteria and fungi; (4) provides synthetic oligonucleotide chemistry in support of development of rapid diagnostic tests and characterization of pathogens and their hosts; (5) provides synthetic peptide chemistry in support of studies of immune response and antigen-antibody interactions; (6) provides biotechnology seminars and methods evaluation; (7) works with CDC pathogen-specific programs in the evaluation of new instrument platforms and technologies to detect emerging and known pathogens and in the evaluation of existing and in the design of innovative and novel diagnostic tests and assays (sequence based); and (8) assesses and supports advanced analytical methodologies for the CDC scientific community.
Comparative Medicine Branch (CANDC). (1) acquires and distributes laboratory animals for research; (2) provides appropriate housing, husbandry, and psychological enrichment for all research animals; (3) provides veterinary services, including clinical and surgical support, for the laboratory animals; (4) develops standard operating procedures for animal care and use in accordance with the policies established by Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) International, the Animal Welfare Act, The Guide for the Care & Use of Laboratory Animals, and the CDC International Animal Care & Use Committee; (5) conducts applied research to improve the care and use of animals in research and collaborates on research projects that use laboratory animals; (6) provides consultation and laboratory animal technology training to investigators, technical staff and animal care personnel; and (7) provides oversight, support and investigator training for the graphical animal information technology protocol development and animal tracking database.
Preparedness, Response, and Outbreak Services Branch (CANDD). (1) provides centralized specimen management services for diagnostic, reference, and outbreak investigations; maintains a bank of biological specimens of epidemiological significance to CDC's research and diagnostic activities; manages and tracks systems of specimen collections; (2) receives, triages, processes, stores, and distributes specimens to CDC laboratories for reference diagnostic testing, research studies, and reports diagnostic and surveillance test results to submitting organizations; (3) provides extracted nucleic acids under a CLIA approved workflow that can be used for sequencing and molecular diagnostics; (4) maintains and manages the biological laboratory component of the LRN; (5) provides strategic guidance for LRN test development and reagent inventory operations; (6) provides technical input for assay development for federally managed environmental monitoring systems and guidelines developed through U.S. government collaborations for the validation and use of environmental detection devices; (7) develops LRN protocols for specimen handling and testing for bioterrorism agents; (8) produces and manages inventory of high-quality reagents available to LRN laboratories and expedites shipping of products to support emergency response needs; (9) collaborates with CDC and external partners to assist in administering proficiency testing programs for critical agents for LRN member laboratories; (10) evaluates and validates advanced technology for the identification and characterization of agents of bioterrorism and other emerging infectious diseases; (11) works with
Laboratory Products and Services Branch (CANDE). (1) maintains laboratory water treatment systems to ensure the quality of CDC reagent grade laboratory water; (2) produces, develops, evaluates, and distributes custom microbiological and cell culture media, buffers, chemical reagents, and cell cultures; (3) maintains CDC's Biological Reference Reagent Inventory and a serviceable inventory at the DCLSR Continuity of Operations storage facility; (4) packages infectious substances, clinical specimens, and other materials, ensuring compliance with shipping regulations; (5) manages all CDC exports and deemed exports ensuring compliance with regulations and serves as CDC liaison with Department of Commerce for export-related issues; (6) coordinates laboratory glassware and consumable stockroom operations; and (7) provides consultation in all of the above technical services.
All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegation, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
CDC has modified its structure. This notice announces the reorganization of the Office of Health Equity (OHE). OHE abolished an office and modified mission and function statements.
This reorganization of OHE was approved by the Director of CDC on September 13, 2024, and became effective September 13, 2024.
Kem Williams, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS TW-3, Atlanta, GA 30329; Telephone 404-639-7199; Email:
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 89 FR 68442-68443, dated August 26, 2024) is amended to reflect the reorganization of Office of Health Equity, Immediate Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Specifically, the changes are as follows:
I. Under Part C, Section C-B, Organization and Functions, make the following changes:
II. Under Part C, Section C-B, Organization and Functions, within the Office of Health Equity (CAG), delete the mission or function statements for and replace with the following:
Office of Health Equity (CAG). The Office of Health Equity (OHE) is located in the CDC Immediate Office of the Director and serves as principal advisor to the CDC Director on all health equity matters domestic and global. In carrying out its mission, OHE: (1) leads an agency-wide health equity strategy that includes crosscutting multi-year initiatives that advance comprehensive, well-defined, and measurable health outcomes; (2) coordinates health equity science including advancing the surveillance of health equity indicators and the science of achieving health equity by consistently applying data collection and analysis standards in collaboration with the Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology, as well as the Office of Science; (3) coordinates programs, practices, policies, and budget decisions across the agency with a health equity lens that includes a comprehensive view of disparities (including race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, rurality, disability) and health inequities (
Office of the Director (CAG1). The Office of the Director provides
Office of Minority Health (CAGC). Office of Minority Health (OMH) (1) promotes public health research, evidence-based programs, policies, and strategies to improve the health and well-being of racial and ethnic minority populations; (2) focuses on the collective goal of the success, sustainability and dissemination of health equity promoting policies, programs, and practices; (3) provides subject matter expertise to the Office of Health Equity in areas that are related to racial and ethnic minority health; (4) works in a coordinated manner with the Office of Women's Health (OWH) to ensure an intersectionality lens is applied to the work to improve the health and well-being of people who identify with a racial and/or ethnic population as well as other identity groups such as people with disabilities; (5) applies an intersectionality lens, contributes subject matter expertise to the development of guidance documents and standards related to improving minority health; (6) applies an intersectionality lens, partners with CIOs to implement and refine how health equity approaches related to minority health are operationalized and institutionalized; (7) contributes technical expertise to the development of quantitative and qualitative indicators and metrics needed to assess minority health and associated health inequities; (8) partners with CIOs to use standardized tools and metrics relevant to minority health to monitor progress, measure effectiveness, and make changes to improve health outcomes; (9) contributes technical expertise to the development of minority health and equity-related technical communication products (
Office of Women's Health (CAGD). (1) promotes public health research, evidence-based programs, policies, and strategies to improve the health and well-being of women and girls; (2) serves as a central point for women's health and raises visibility of risk factors and other conditions that impact women's and girls' health; (3) provides subject matter expertise to support gender and women's health and collaborates with OMH to develop a whole of public health approach while contributing to and supporting the work of OHE/OD; (4) applies an intersectionality lens, contributes subject matter expertise to the development of guidance documents and standards related to women's health; (5) applies an intersectionality lens when partnering with CIOs to implement and refine how health equity approaches related to women's health are operationalized and institutionalized; (6) contributes technical expertise to the development of quantitative and qualitative indicators and metrics needed to assess women's health; (7) partners with CIOs to use standardized tools and metrics relevant to women's health to monitor progress, measure effectiveness, and make changes to improve health equity outcomes; (8) contributes technical expertise to the development of women's health and equity-related technical communication products (
III. Under part C, Section C-B, Organization and Functions, delete the respective mission or functional statements for and replace with the following:
Meningitis, Pertussis, and Diphtheria Epidemiology Branch (CJEC). (1) provides epidemiologic subject matter expertise and technical assistance for surveillance, prevention, and control of bacterial illness, including meningococcal disease,
All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegation, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the dates and times of the virtual Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) public meeting to be held from November 6, 2024, through November 8, 2024, to discuss CMS' preliminary coding, Medicare benefit category, and payment determinations, if applicable, for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set for non-drug and non-biological items and services, as well as how to register for those meetings.
Sundus Ashar, (410) 786-0750,
On December 21, 2000, Congress enacted the Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that the Secretary establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001,
In 2020, we implemented changes to our HCPCS Level II coding procedures, including the establishment of quarterly coding cycles for drugs and biological products and biannual coding cycles for non-drug and non-biological items and services.
In the December 28, 2021,
Prior to registering to attend a virtual public meeting, all potential participants and other attendees are advised to review the public meeting agendas at
The November 6, 2024 through November 8, 2024, HCPCS public meetings will be virtual and available for remote audio attendance and participation only via Zoom. The Zoom link and registration instructions will be posted in the Guidelines for Participation in HCPCS Public Meetings document on the CMS website at
The following information must be provided when registering to be a speaker:
• Name;
• Company name (if applicable);
• Agenda item and application number;
• Email address;
• Any special assistance requests (will be considered if the registration is submitted by 5 p.m. ET, October 25, 2024);
• Whether the registrant is a primary speaker or a 5-minute speaker for an agenda item; and
• Whether the primary speaker will use a PowerPoint presentation.
Each applicant that submitted a HCPCS Level II code application that will be discussed at the virtual public meetings is permitted to designate a primary speaker. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for a primary speaker per agenda item. Any unused time from the primary speaker will be forfeited and cannot be delegated to another speaker. The deadline for primary speakers to register and submit any supporting PowerPoint presentation is 5 p.m. ET, October 25, 2024. CMS will accept PowerPoint presentations if those materials are emailed to
All PowerPoint presentation materials must not exceed 10 slides and should be in PowerPoint presentation format, not PDF. We will not play videos, transitions, or animations during the public meeting sessions and request that the speakers exclude these materials from their PowerPoint presentation and instead submit any relevant video or animation materials along with their written comments. We request that speakers ensure the presentation does not include any inappropriate content before submission.
Every primary speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation at the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the manufacturer of the item that is the subject of the HCPCS Level II application that the primary speaker presented, or any competitors of that manufacturer with respect to the item. This includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the applicant.
Any individual related to the public meeting agenda item, including but not limited to, an employee, interested parties, competitor, insurer, public consumer, etc., may register and speak as a 5-minute speaker. The deadline for registering to be a 5-minute speaker is 5 p.m. ET, October 25, 2024.
Every 5-minute speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation at the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the manufacturer of the item that is the subject of the HCPCS Level II code application or agenda item that the 5-minute speaker presented, or with any competitors of that manufacturer with respect to the item. This includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the applicant. We will not accept any other written materials, outside of the written comments, from a 5-minute speaker.
All individuals who plan to attend the virtual public meetings to listen and do not plan to speak, may access the virtual public meeting using the Zoom link posted on the HCPCS Level II website at
Individuals who require special assistance must register and request special assistance services by 5 p.m. ET, October 25, 2024.
The primary and 5-minute speaker(s) must email a brief, written summary (one paragraph) of their comments and conclusions. Written comments from anyone, including the primary and 5-minute speaker(s), will only be accepted when emailed to:
The HCPCS section of the CMS website also includes details regarding the public meeting process for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set, including information on how to join the meeting remotely, and guidelines for an effective presentation. The HCPCS section of the CMS website also contains a document titled “Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Coding Procedures (PDF),” which is a description of the HCPCS Level II coding process, including a detailed explanation of the procedures CMS uses to make HCPCS Level II coding determinations.
When CMS refers to a HCPCS code or HCPCS Level II coding application above, CMS may also be referring to circumstances when a HCPCS code has already been issued, but a Medicare benefit category and/or payment has not been determined. CMS is working diligently to address Medicare benefit category and payment determinations for new items and services that may be DME, prosthetic devices, orthotics and prosthetics, therapeutic shoes and inserts, surgical dressings, or splints, casts, and other devices used for reductions of fractures and dislocations under Medicare Part B. Please check the CMS website listed above for the final agenda.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of CMS, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization that accredits suppliers of home infusion
The approval announced in this final notice is effective September 26, 2024 through September 26, 2030.
Shannon Freeland, (410) 786-4348.
Home infusion therapy (HIT) is a treatment option for Medicare beneficiaries with a wide range of acute and chronic conditions. Section 5012 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255, enacted December 13, 2016) added section 1861(iii) to the Social Security Act (the Act), establishing a new Medicare benefit for HIT services. Section 1861(iii)(1) of the Act defines “home infusion therapy” as professional services, including nursing services; training and education not otherwise covered under the Durable Medical Equipment (DME) benefit; remote monitoring; and other monitoring services. Home infusion therapy must be furnished by a qualified HIT supplier and furnished in the individual's home. Sections 1861(iii)(A) and (B) of the Act require that the individual (patient) must:
• Be under the care of an applicable provider (that is, physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant); and
• Have a plan of care established and periodically reviewed by a physician in coordination with the furnishing of home infusion drugs under Part B, which prescribes the type, amount, and duration of infusion therapy services that are to be furnished.
Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires that a qualified HIT supplier be accredited by an accrediting organization (AO) designated by the Secretary in accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act.
Section 1834(u)(5)(A) of the Act identifies factors for designating HIT AOs and for reviewing and modifying the list of designated HIT AOs. These statutory factors are as follows:
• The ability of the accrediting organization to conduct timely reviews of HIT accreditation applications.
• The ability of the accrediting organization to take into account the capacities of HIT suppliers located in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act).
• Whether the accrediting organization has established reasonable fees to be charged to HIT suppliers applying for accreditation.
• Such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 1834(u)(5)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate AOs to accredit HIT suppliers furnishing HIT not later than January 1, 2021. Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires a “qualified home infusion therapy supplier” to be accredited by a CMS-approved AO, pursuant to section 1834(u)(5) of the Act.
The current term of approval for the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) HIT accreditation program expires September 26, 2024.
Section 1834(u)(5) of the Act and § 488.1010 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data.
Our rules at 42 CFR 488.1020(a) require that we publish, after receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. Pursuant to our rules at 42 CFR 488.1010(d), we have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
In the April 26, 2024
• An administrative review of NABP's:
++ Corporate policies;
++ Financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys;
++ Procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its HIT surveyors;
++ Ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited HITs; and
++ Survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• The equivalency of NABP's standards for HIT as compared with CMS' HIT conditions for participation.
• NABP's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training;
++ The comparability of NABP's to CMS' standards and processes, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities;
++ NABP's processes and procedures for monitoring a HIT supplier found out of compliance with NABP's program requirements;
++ NABP's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed HIT facilities and respond to the facility's evidence of standards compliance in a timely manner;
++ NABP's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective assessment and interpretation of the organization's survey process;
++ NABP's capacity to adequately fund required surveys;
++ NABP's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to ensure that surveys are unannounced; and
++ NABP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans or NABP's evidence of standards compliance).
• The adequacy of NABP's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
• NABP's agreement or policies for voluntary and involuntary termination of suppliers.
• NABP's agreement or policies for voluntary and involuntary termination of the HIT AO program.
• NABP's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
In accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act, the April 26, 2024, proposed
We compared NABP's HIT accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare Conditions for Coverage of 42 CFR part 486, and the survey and certification process requirements of part 488. Our review and evaluation of NABP's HIT application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, NABP has completed revising its standards and certification processes to meet the conditions at §§ 486.500 to 486.525.
• Section 486.520(a), to address the requirement that all patients must be under the care of an applicable provider.
• Section 486.520(b), to address the requirement that the plan of care must be established by a physician and that it prescribes the type, amount, and duration of the home infusion therapy services that are to be furnished.
• Section 486.520(c), to address the requirement that the plan of care for each patient must be periodically reviewed by the physician.
• Section 486.525(a), to address the requirement that the HIT supplier must provide the following services on a 7-day a week, 24 hour-a-day basis in accordance with the plan of care:
++ Section 486.525(a)(1), to provide professional services, including nursing services.
++ Section 486.525(a)(2), to address the requirement for patient training and education and not otherwise paid for as durable medical equipment.
++ Section 486.525(a)(3), to address the requirement of remote monitoring services for the provision of HIT services and home infusion drugs.
Section 486.525(b), to address the requirement that all home infusion therapy suppliers must provide HIT services in accordance with nationally recognized standards of practice, and in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
Based on the review and observations described in section III. of this final notice, we have determined that NABP's requirements for HIT meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve NABP as a national accreditation organization for HITs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective September 26, 2024 through September 26, 2030.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve The Compliance Team (TCT) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization that accredits suppliers of home infusion therapy (HIT) services that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
The approval announced in this final notice is effective September 28, 2024, through September 28, 2030.
Shannon Freeland, (410) 786-4348.
Home infusion therapy (HIT) is a treatment option for Medicare beneficiaries with a wide range of acute and chronic conditions. Section 5012 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255, enacted December 13, 2016) added section 1861(iii) to the Social Security Act (the Act), establishing a new Medicare benefit for HIT services. Section 1861(iii)(1) of the Act defines “home infusion therapy” as professional services, including nursing services; training and education not otherwise covered under the Durable Medical Equipment (DME) benefit; remote monitoring; and other monitoring services. Home infusion therapy must be furnished by a qualified HIT supplier and furnished in the individual's home. Sections 1861(iii)(A) and (B) of the Act require that the individual (patient) must:
• Be under the care of an applicable provider (that is, physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant); and
• Have a plan of care established and periodically reviewed by a physician in coordination with the furnishing of home infusion drugs under Part B, which prescribes the type, amount, and duration of infusion therapy services that are to be furnished.
Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires that a qualified HIT supplier be accredited by an accrediting organization (AO) designated by the Secretary in accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act.
Section 1834(u)(5)(A) of the Act identifies factors for designating HIT AOs and for reviewing and modifying the list of designated HIT AOs. These statutory factors are as follows:
• The ability of the accrediting organization to conduct timely reviews of HIT accreditation applications.
• The ability of the accrediting organization to take into account the capacities HIT suppliers located in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act).
• Whether the accrediting organization has established reasonable fees to be charged to HIT suppliers applying for accreditation.
• Such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 1834(u)(5)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate AOs to accredit HIT suppliers furnishing HIT not later than January 1, 2021. Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires a “qualified home infusion therapy supplier” to be accredited by a CMS-approved AO, pursuant to section 1834(u)(5) of the Act.
The current term of approval for The Compliance Team (TCT) HIT
Section 1834(u)(5) of the Act and § 488.1010 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data.
Our rules at 42 CFR 488.1020(a) require that we publish, after receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. Pursuant to our rules at 42 CFR 488.1010(d), we have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
In the April 29, 2024,
• An administrative review of TCT's:
++ Corporate policies;
++ Financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys;
++ Procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its HIT surveyors;
++ Ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited HITs; and
++ Survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• The equivalency of TCT's standards for HIT as compared with CMS' HIT conditions for participation.
• TCT's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training;
++ The comparability of TCT's to CMS' standards and processes, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities;
++ TCT's processes and procedures for monitoring a HIT supplier found out of compliance with TCT's program requirements;
++ TCT's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed HIT facilities and respond to the facility's evidence of standards compliance in a timely manner;
++ TCT's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective assessment and interpretation of the organization's survey process;
++ TCT's capacity to adequately fund required surveys;
++ TCT's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to ensure that surveys are unannounced; and
++ TCT's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans or TCT's evidence of standards compliance).
• The adequacy of TCT's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
• TCT's agreement or policies for voluntary and involuntary termination of suppliers.
• TCT's agreement or policies for voluntary and involuntary termination of the HIT AO program.
• TCT's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
In accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act, the April 29, 2024, proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether TCT's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions for participation for HIT. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.
We compared TCT's HIT accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare Conditions for Coverage of 42 CFR part 486, and the survey and certification process requirements of part 488. Our review and evaluation of TCT's HIT application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, TCT has completed revising its standards and certification processes to meet the conditions at §§ 486.500 to 486.525.
• Section 486.520(a), to address the requirement of all patients must be under the care of an applicable provider.
• Section 486.520(b), to address the requirement that the plan of care must be established by a physician and that it prescribes the type, amount, and duration of the home infusion therapy services that are to be furnished.
• Section 486.520(c), to address the requirement that the plan of care for each patient must be periodically reviewed by the physician.
• Section 486.525(a), to address the requirement that the HIT supplier must provide the following services on a 7-day a week, 24 hour-a-day basis in accordance with the plan of care:
++ Section 486.525(a)(1), to provide professional services, including nursing services.
++ Section 486.525(a)(2), to address the requirement for patient training and education and not otherwise paid for as durable medical equipment.
++ Section 486.525(a)(3), to address the requirement of remote monitoring services for the provision of HIT services and home infusion drugs.
• Section 486.525(b), to address the requirement that all home infusion therapy suppliers must provide HIT services in accordance with nationally recognized standards of practice, and in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
Based on the review and observations described in section III. of this final notice, we have determined that TCT's requirements for HIT meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve TCT as a national accreditation organization for HITs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective September 28, 2024 through September 28, 2030.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
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 October 21, 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.
2.
Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice for public comment.
The ACF, OCS, Division of Energy Assistance announces a preliminary determination that funds from the federal fiscal year 2023 (FY23) Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are available for reallotment to states, territories, tribes, and tribal organizations that received FY24 direct LIHEAP awards. The purpose of this award is to redistribute FY23 annual LIHEAP funds that recipients were unable to obligate or carry over to FY24. No sub-recipients of these recipients or other entities may apply for these funds.
Comments may be submitted to: Peter Edelman, Program Analyst, Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C Street SW, 5th Floor; Mail Room 5425; Washington, DC 20201 or via email:
Akm Rahman, Program Operations Branch Chief, Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services, 330 C Street SW, 5th Floor; Mail Room 5425; Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-401-5306; email:
After receiving Federal Financial Reports (FFRs), Carryover and Reallotment Reports (CRRs), and fourth-quarter Quarterly Reports (QRs) from FY23 LIHEAP recipients, ACF has determined that $18,363,980 in FY23 LIHEAP funds may be available for reallotment for FY24. This determination was based on the reports of 75 recipients and the total obligations of 4 recipients. LIHEAP recipients submitted the FY23 CRRs to OCS, as required by regulations applicable to LIHEAP at 45 CFR 96.81(b).
The LIHEAP statute allows recipients who have funds unobligated at the end of the FY for which they are awarded to request that they be allowed to carry over up to 10 percent of their full-year allotments to the next FY (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2)). Funds in excess of this amount must be returned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and are subject to reallotment under 42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1).
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(3), ACF notified each of the 79 recipients that reported or, in the absence of reporting, had potentially $18,363,980 of unobligated funds above their carryover caps. In these notices, ACF told each recipient about the amount that, according to the recipients' reports, it needed to return for de-obligation and redistribution to FY24 recipients as part of the reallotment. It also gave each recipient 30 calendar days to provide comments directly to ACF.
All LIHEAP recipients that receive a portion of these funds will be notified of the final reallotment amount redistributed to them for FY24. This decision will also be published in the
The FY23 LIHEAP funds that ACF preliminarily expects to become available for reallotment determination come from the following recipients in the following amounts:
If funds are reallotted, then they will be allocated in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 8623 and must be treated by LIHEAP recipients that receive them as funds appropriated for FY24. As FY24 funds, they will be subject to all requirements of the LIHEAP statute, including 42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2), which requires that a recipient obligate at least 90 percent of its total block grant allocation for a fiscal year by the end of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated; that is, by September 30, 2024. Furthermore, recipients that receive these funds may use these funds for any purpose authorized under LIHEAP and must add them to their total LIHEAP funds payable for FY24 for purposes of calculating statutory caps on administrative costs, carryover, Assurance 16 activities, and weatherization assistance.
Additionally, all recipients of these funds must (1) ensure that these funds are included in the amounts on Lines 1.1 of their FY24 CRRs; (2) reconcile these funds, to the extent that they received them, on their corresponding FFRs; and (3) record, on their FY24 Household Reports, households that receive benefits at least partly from these funds. State recipients must also ensure that these funds are included in the Grantee Survey sections of their FY24 LIHEAP Performance Data Forms.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rate for using a priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2025. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended, authorizes FDA to determine and collect priority review user fees for certain applications for review of human drug or biological products when those applications use a tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, or material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) priority review voucher. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, or material threat MCM product applications, respectively, that meet the requirements of the FD&C Act, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee for using a priority review voucher is determined each fiscal year, based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA to review a human drug application designated as priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred in the review of an application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year. This notice establishes the FY 2025 priority review fee rate applicable to submission of eligible applications for review of human drug or biological products using a rare pediatric disease, material threat MCM, or tropical disease priority review voucher and outlines the payment procedures for such fees.
This rate is effective on October 1, 2024, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2025.
Olufunmilayo Ariyo, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 4041 Powder Mill Rd., 6th Floor, Beltsville, MD 20705-4304, 240-402-4989; or the User Fees Support Staff at
Section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) added section 524 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n). In section 524 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of tropical diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 524 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application for a tropical disease (as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the tropical disease product application (as defined in section 524(a)(4) of the FD&C Act).
Section 908 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) added section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff). In section 529 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drugs and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug for a rare pediatric disease (as defined in section 529(a)(3)) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the rare pediatric disease product application (as defined in section 529(a)(4) of the FD&C Act).
Section 3086 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) added section 565A to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-4a). In section 565A of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of material threat MCMs by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 565A of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible material threat MCM application (as defined in section 565A(a)(4)) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the material threat MCM application.
The recipient of a priority review voucher may either use the voucher for a future human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) (or section 351(a)) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the PHS Act. As further described below, a priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Information regarding review goals for FY 2025 is available at:
The sponsor that uses a priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review of its eligible human drug application, but must pay FDA a priority review user fee in addition to any other fee required by PDUFA. FDA published information on its website about how the priority review voucher program operates.
This notice establishes the FY 2025 priority review fee rate for use of
FDA interprets section 524(c)(2) (tropical disease priority review user fee), section 529(c)(2) (rare pediatric disease priority review user fee), and section 565A(c)(2) (material threat MCM priority review user fee) of the FD&C Act as requiring that FDA determine the amount of each priority review user fee for each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.
A priority review is a review conducted within a timeframe prescribed in FDA commitments for such reviews made in connection with PDUFA reauthorization for FYs 2023—2027, known as PDUFA VII. For the FYs 2023 through 2027, FDA has committed to a goal date to review and act on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status within the expedited timeframe of 6 months after receipt or filing date (filing date for new molecular entity (NME) new drug application (NDA) and original biologics license application (BLA) submissions; receipt date for priority non-NME original NDA submissions). Normally, an application for a human drug or biological product will qualify for priority review if the product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. An application that does not receive a priority designation receives a standard review. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.
FDA is setting a fee for FY 2025, which is to be based on standard cost data from the previous fiscal year, FY 2024. However, the FY 2024 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, thus the cost data for FY 2024 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2023. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. The Agency expects all applications that received priority review would contain clinical data. The application categories with clinical data for which FDA tracks the cost of review are (1) NDAs for an NME with clinical data and (2) BLAs.
The total cost for FDA to review NME NDAs with clinical data and BLAs in FY 2023 was $305,296,115. There was a total of 61 applications in these 2 categories (34 NME NDAs with clinical data and 27 BLAs). (Note: These numbers exclude the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief NDAs; no investigational new drug review costs are included in this amount.) Of these applications, 37 (19 NDAs and 18 BLAs) received priority review and the remaining 24 (15 NDAs and 9 BLAs) received standard reviews. Because a priority review compresses a review that ordinarily takes 10 months into 6 months, FDA estimates that a multiplier of 1.67 (10 months divided by 6 months) should be applied to nonpriority review costs in estimating the effort and cost of a priority review as compared to a standard review. This multiplier is consistent with published research on this subject, which supports a priority review multiplier in the range of 1.48 to 2.35 (Ref. 1). Using FY 2023 figures, the costs of a priority and standard review are estimated using the following formula:
For the FY 2025 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2023 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2024, to adjust the FY 2023 amount for cost increases in FY 2024. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2025 is set in table 1:
Sections 524(c)(4)(B), 529(c)(4)(B), and 565A(c)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act specify that the human drug application for which the sponsor requests the use of a priority review voucher will be considered incomplete if the priority review user fee and all other applicable user fees are not paid in accordance with FDA payment procedures. In addition, FDA may not grant a waiver, exemption, reduction, or refund of any fees due and payable under these sections of the FD&C Act (see sections 524(c)(4)(C), 529(c)(4)(C), and 565A(c)(4)(C)). FDA may not collect priority review voucher fees for any fiscal year “except to the extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts.” (Section 524(c)(5)(B), 529(c)(5)(B), and 565A(c)(6) of the FD&C Act.)
The priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application received on or after
All three priority review vouchers have a notification requirement. To comply with this requirement, the sponsor must notify FDA not later than 90 days prior to submission of the human drug or biological application that is the subject of a priority review voucher of an intent to submit the human drug application, including the estimated submission date. See sections 524(b)(4), 529(b)(4)(B), and 565A(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act.
Under sections 524(c)(4)(A) (tropical disease priority review user fee) and 565A(c)(4)(A) (material threat MCM priority review user fee) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
Under section 529(c)(4)(A) (rare pediatric disease priority review user fee) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
Payment must be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, credit card, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to use
If paying by paper check, the sponsor should include on the check the appropriate reference number and the type of review requested. For rare pediatric disease priority review, please use the invoice number issued by FDA. The invoice number is issued by FDA upon receipt of the rare pediatric disease priority review notification (see section IV.A). For tropical disease priority review and for material threat MCM priority review, please use the user fee ID number generated for the
All paper checks should be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank made payable and mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 3180 Rider Trail S, Earth City, MO 63045. (
If paying by wire transfer, please reference your invoice number/unique user fee ID number when completing your transfer. (For rare pediatric disease priority review, please use your invoice number issued by FDA upon receipt of notification. For all other priority reviews, please use the unique user fee ID number generated for the
The following reference is on display with the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is not available electronically at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of nine abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of October 21, 2024.
Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3471,
The applicants listed in table 1 have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in table 1, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of October 21, 2024. Approval of each entire application is withdrawn, including any strengths and dosage forms inadvertently missing from table 1. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products listed in table 1 without an approved new drug application or ANDA violates sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)). Drug products that are listed in table 1 that are in inventory on October 21, 2024 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related
The meeting will be held virtually on October 10, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
All meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
The online web conference meeting will be available at the following link on the day of the meeting:
Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2024-N-4189. The docket will close on October 9, 2024. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before October 2, 2024, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Kathleen Hayes or Sussan Paydar, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 202-657-8533,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at:
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kathleen Hayes or Sussan Paydar (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 21, 2024.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports the FDA medical device and device user fee programs. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002
Owners or operators of places of business (also called establishments or facilities) that are involved in the production and distribution of medical devices intended for use in the United States are required to register annually with FDA, a process known as establishment registration (21 CFR part 807, subparts A through D). (The information collection for medical device establishment registration and listing is approved under OMB control number 0910-0625.) All establishments required to register must pay a user fee. Form FDA 3601a, the “Device Facility User Fee Cover Sheet,” is designed to collect payments for the annual establishment registration fee for medical device establishments.
Under section 704(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374(g)), FDA may accredit persons to inspect qualified manufacturers of class II and class III devices. An eligible establishment is permitted to select any FDA-accredited person to conduct an inspection in lieu of an FDA inspection, but the eligible establishment must submit notice to FDA for selection approval (see 21 U.S.C. 374(g)(1) and (g)(6)(B)). Referred to as the “Accredited Persons Inspection Program,” FDA publishes a complete list of accredited persons and the activities for which they are accredited on our website at Third Party Device Inspection,
The guidance document entitled “FDA and Industry Procedures for Section 513(g) Requests for Information under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” (December 2019)
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
According to FDA's database system, manufacturers of products subject to MDUFMA submit an average of 6,182 applications annually and submit an average of 24,086 Device Facility User Fee applications. However, not all manufacturers will have any cover sheet submissions in a given year and some may have multiple cover sheet submissions. The estimated hours per
Section 704(g) of the FD&C Act provides for accreditation of persons for the purpose of conducting inspections and provides the minimum requirements a person must meet to be accredited to conduct inspections (an Accredited Person (AP)). The burden estimate for requests for accreditation is based on the number of applications we've received. Once an organization is accredited, it will not be required to reapply.
The AP Program permits eligible manufacturers to use APs to perform certain inspections. While all firms remain subject to inspection by FDA, eligible manufacturers have the option of requesting inspection by an AP. A device establishment is eligible for inspection by APs if the establishment meets certain conditions of section 704(g)(6) of the FD&C Act, including that they provide notice of their intention to use an AP to conduct inspections of the establishment.
We estimate there are 4,000 domestic manufacturers and 4,000 foreign manufacturers that are eligible for inclusion under the AP program. Based on informal communications with industry, approximately 10 of these manufacturers may submit a request to use an AP in any given year.
Respondents may elect to prepare their 513(g) request for information using CDRH's electronic Submission Template and Resource (eSTAR) voluntary guided submission preparation tool, which was developed to improve submission consistency and enhance efficiency in the review process. The total number of annual responses is based on the average number of 513(g) requests received each year by CDRH and CBER respectively.
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made modifications to our burden estimate. In our March 2023 change request submission, we erroneously excluded the information collection entitled, “Notification of the intent to use an Accredited Person.” We have included the information collection activity to this renewal. The information collection, therefore, reflects a cumulative increase in burden by 10 annual responses and 150 burden hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by November 18, 2024.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “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 provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection helps implement statutory and regulatory requirements that govern the labeling of prescription drugs. FDA regulations codified in part 201 (21 CFR part 201), subpart B (§ 201.50 to § 201.58) apply to requisite labeling elements that include a statement of identity; a declaration of net quantity of contents; a statement of dosage; and specific content and formatting of information. The regulations also provide for requesting that FDA waive any requirement under §§ 201.56, 201.57, and 201.80. Since last approval of the information collection, FDA requested, and OMB approved, adding tasks provided for under § 201.25(d), requiring that manufacturers submit a written request for exemption from applicable bar code requirements, and tasks relating to exceptions or alternatives to the labeling requirements of products in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) as provided for in § 201.26, to the scope of the activity. Under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), the Department of Health and Human Services stockpiles medical products that are essential to the security of the Nation (section 319F-2 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b). Information regarding the SNS is available at the following website:
Relevant information regarding applicable statutory and regulatory requirements are also discussed in topic-specific guidance documents issued consistent with 21 CFR 314.445, 21 CFR 601.29 (guidance documents), and Agency Good Guidance Practice regulations in 21 CFR 10.115, which provide for public comment at any time. The following guidance documents discuss activities included in the information collection:
“Safety Labeling Changes—Implementation of Section 505(o)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,” (July 2013). The guidance document includes instruction on communicating with FDA regarding labeling changes required under section 505(o)(4) (Section IV—Procedures) and is available for download from our website at
“Guidance for Industry on Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims,” (March 2011). The guidance document is intended to help respondents with developing labeling for cardiovascular outcome claims for drugs that are indicated to treat hypertension. The guidance document is available for download from our website at
Respondents to the information collection are sponsors of product labeling subject to the applicable labeling requirements. We characterize the information collection activities as recordkeeping, consistent with 5 CFR 1320.3(m), noting that a recordkeeping requirement means a requirement to maintain specified records, including the requirement to retain, notify third parties, the Federal government, or the public regarding such records. Regulations in part 201 govern the statement of ingredients and declaration of net quantity of contents with regard to prescription drug product labeling. The regulations require that firms identify bulk or transport containers with the name of the product contained therein and that containers be accompanied by documentation that identifies the product as meeting applicable compendial standards. New drug product and biological product applicants must: (1) design and create prescription drug labeling containing “Highlights,” “Contents,” and “Full Prescribing Information;” (2) test the designed labeling (for example, to ensure that the designed labeling fits into carton-enclosed products); and (3) submit it to FDA for approval.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on our evaluation, we have retained the currently approved estimate that 414 applicants will prepare an average of 549 prescription drug labels annually, and assume it will require 3,349 hours to design, test, and submit to FDA as part of a new drug application or a biologics license application.
New medical gas containers must meet applicable requirements found in 21 CFR part 211, as well as specific labeling requirements in § 201.328. Consistent with statutory authority under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), we have revised the information collection to include burden associated new medical gas labeling requirements under § 201.161(b), established by a final rule published in the
Based on our evaluation, few requests for exemption from barcode requirements are received and we have therefore made no changes to the currently approved estimate for this activity. Likewise, we have also retained the currently approved estimate for information collection activities associated with safety labeling requirements established in section505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act. Similarly, we retain the currently approved estimate for exceptions to labeling under § 201.26, however this activity was previously approved in OMB control number 0910-0614 and is a new element to the collection, adding 1 response and 32 hours annually.
Finally, we have combined activity elements associated with labeling recommendations regarding drug products that include a hypertension indication as discussed in the applicable guidance, reducing the overall estimate for this element by 4 hours annually.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of supplemental award.
HRSA is awarding supplemental funds in fiscal year 2024 to provide coverage for calls to the toll-free Poison Help line that originate from Puerto Rico. The current program period of performance ends on August 31, 2024.
Maureen Perkins, MPH; Team Lead; Poison Control Program; Division of Child, Adolescent and Family Health; Maternal and Child Health Bureau; HRSA, at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of supplemental award.
HRSA will provide supplemental award funds in fiscal year 2024 to the current recipient of the Supporting Healthy Start (HS) Performance Project cooperative agreement (HRSA-24-038) to support the second year of the Alumni Peer Navigator (APN) Services Pilot.
Aaron M. Lopata, MD, MPP, Senior Medical Officer, Division of HS and Perinatal Services, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, at
Supplemental funding for similar activities may be considered in future years, subject to the availability of funding for the activity and the satisfactory performance of the recipient.
NICHQ will use supplemental funds to support HS grantees to implement this peer-to-peer workforce model, the APN Services Pilot. The APN Services Pilot was previously known as the Benefits Bundle Pilot. The APN Services Pilot is an interagency collaboration between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget/U.S. Digital Service.
The pilot consists of five HS projects in Florence, SC, Atlanta, GA, Baton Rouge, LA, Los Angeles, CA and Stoneville, Mississippi.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8W-25A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our website at:
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Asthma Education Prevention Program Coordinating Committee, September 23, 2024, 11:00 a.m. to September 23, 2024, 1:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
The meeting is being postponed to a later date. A new
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Career Development for Early Career Investigators Study Section, October 08, 2024, 09:30 a.m. to October 09, 2024, 06:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, 8th Floor, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
Dates changes from 10/8-9/2024 to 10/24-25/2024 due to Dr. Dieguez having conflict of interest with the Society of Neuroscience conference and the ad hoc reviewers are attending the meeting. The meeting 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 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 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 a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NCI-Shady Grove campus. All visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 18, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0028 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Email. Submit comments to:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This collection of information is provided for by subheadings 9801.00.10, 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, 9802.00.60 and 9802.00.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and by 19 U.S.C. 1508 through 1509, 19 CFR 10.11-10.24, 19 CFR 141.88 and 19 CFR 152.106.
CBP Form 247 can be found at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 18, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0004 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Email. Submit comments to:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 18, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0006 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Email. Submit comments to:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of extension and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning access to all FEMA controlled facilities. This information is used to create a profile within the system boundary of FEMA.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
Visitor management is governed by DHS Instruction Manual 121-01-011-01, Visitor Management for DHS Headquarters and DHS Component Headquarters Facilities; FEMA Directive 121-1, Personal Identification Standard; FEMA Directive 121-3, Facility Access; and FEMA Instruction 121-3-1, Credential and Access Reference.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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,
Office of Policy Analysis, Interior.
Annotated outline for the first National Nature Assessment, request for public comment.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program seeks public comment on the proposed themes and topics of the first National Nature Assessment as indicated by the chapter annotated outlines linked here. Based on input received in response to this notice, chapter author teams will develop their draft chapters.
Comments must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on November 4, 2024.
Comments from the public will be accepted electronically via
Tessa Francis, (202) 419-3498,
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was created by Congress in 1990 to “assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.” USGCRP comprises 15 Federal agencies that work together to carry out its legislative mandate. USGCRP is conducting the first National Nature Assessment (NNA1) to assess the condition of nature as an aspect of global change.
The scope of NNA1 is to assess the status, observed trends, and future projections of America's lands, waters, wildlife, biodiversity, and ecosystems and the benefits they provide, including connections to the economy, public health, equity, climate mitigation and adaptation, and national security.
Background information, additional details, and instructions for submitting comments can be found at
The USGCRP seeks public comment on the annotated outlines of each chapter of the NNA1, in particular on the scope and framing of chapter's proposed topic areas. Input received on proposed themes within each chapter's annotated outline will be used by chapter author teams to develop their draft chapters.
Authors of each NNA1 chapter will develop chapter content structured around the topic areas proposed in the annotated outlines. The outlines highlight what nature provides to us in terms of its inherent worth, our well-being, economic value, and more, while looking ahead to understand how these benefits might change in the future. Because chapter 1 will provide an overview summary of the final report, chapter 1 does not have an annotated outline currently.
Chapter titles reflect the target topics for the chapters. Final titles for the chapter may evolve as authors assess published literature.
As noted in the November 2023 notice (88 FR 80747;
Chapter authors will hold virtual public engagement workshops to solicit public feedback on a chapter's annotated outlines. The schedule for these workshops and registration opportunities will be posted on
Responses may be used by the U.S. Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. The U.S. Department of the Interior requests that neither business proprietary information nor third-party copyrighted information be submitted in response to this request for comment. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation or for the use of any information contained in the response.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 18, 2024.
Send your written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Darrin King, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Attention PRA Office, 440 W 200 S #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Grasso by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on March 1, 2024 (89 FR 15217) and determined on June 4, 2024 that it would conduct expedited reviews (89 FR 59160, July 22, 2024).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on September 13, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5544 (September 2024), entitled
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on August 30, 2024, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination on Violation of section 337. On September 13, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only.
Paul Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain photovoltaic connectors and components thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 13, 2024. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 15, 2024.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1365”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules; notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules will hold a meeting in a hybrid format with remote attendance options on November 6-7, 2024 in New York, NY. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
November 6-7, 2024.
H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a meeting in a hybrid format with remote attendance options on November 8, 2024 in New York, NY. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
November 8, 2024.
H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232(b)), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold meetings on October 2-4, 2024. The Committee will be conducting meetings that will include some Members being physically
[
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
An electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the cognizant ACRS staff at least one day before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chair. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an amendment of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) License No. SNM-2011, issued on April 13, 2007, to American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO) for the operation of the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP). This proposed amendment would increase ACO's licensed material possession limits under the high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) demonstration and operations program to support production of approximately 1,400 kilograms (kg) of HALEU in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on September 19, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0145 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Christine Pineda, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6789; email:
The NRC is considering an amendment of ACO's Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2011, which authorized the operation of the HALEU cascade at the ACP in Pike County, Ohio in June 2021. If approved, the amendment would increase ACO's licensed material possession limits to support the production of HALEU UF
ACO is producing HALEU for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). HALEU is uranium that has been enriched so that the concentration of the fissile isotope U-235 is between 5 and 20 percent of the mass of the uranium. The DOE established a 3-phase contract with ACO to deploy a cascade of 16 operating centrifuges and two spare centrifuges to demonstrate the capability to enrich uranium to the higher level. The NRC approved the license amendment for the operation of this HALEU cascade in June 2021. The expiration date of the current phase (phase 2) of the contract that DOE has funded is December 31, 2024. Phase 3, involving up to three, 3-year periods of operation of the HALEU cascade, would need Congressional appropriations and the approval of the NRC to move forward.
The proposed action would increase the authorized limits for possession of licensed material for the purpose of producing approximately 1,400 kg of HALEU UF
ACO operates the HALEU cascade in a building that previously housed the former Lead Cascade Facility, which was decommissioned in 2018. ACO does not propose to construct new buildings, conduct ground-disturbing activities, ship HALEU offsite, or make changes to the HALEU centrifuge cascade design that the NRC approved in 2021.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated February 13, 2023, as supplemented by letters dated June 29, 2023, February 15, 2024, and March 7, 2024.
The proposed amendment would allow ACO to continue demonstrating the capability to enrich uranium-235 up to a level necessary to produce HALEU. ACO is under contract with DOE to enrich uranium and produce HALEU using the 16-centrifuge enrichment cascade constructed for this purpose.
The NRC staff assessed the potential environmental impacts from the increase in possession limits on land use; historic and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; noise; traffic and transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management. The NRC staff determined that the proposed action would not affect most resource areas and would not have significant impacts on air quality, transportation, occupational health and safety, and waste management. ACO would not make changes to the enrichment processes or to the outside portions of buildings. All HALEU produced would be stored onsite. All enrichment activities would continue to take place indoors, resulting in no changes to noise levels. Because operations would continue entirely inside buildings, including storage of additional enriched UF
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
In accordance with NRC policy, on June 27, 2024, the staff consulted with the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and Ohio Department of Health regarding the EA and FONSI. On July 5, 2024, the staff consulted with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 regarding the EA and FONSI. In addition, on July 5, 2024, the staff provided a courtesy notification of the proposed action to the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office. The NRC received no comments on the EA.
Based on its review of the proposed license amendment request, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that approving the requested license amendment to increase the possession limits of licensed material for the HALEU
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is appointing a Presiding Officer to represent the interests of the general public and provide a public written intermediate decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues raised in this proceeding.
Submit notices of intervention electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
On June 17, 2024, Sai and Fiat Fiendum, Inc. (Complainants) filed a complaint with the Commission regarding the Postal Service's treatment of mail items for the blind (blind mail).
For the reasons explained below, the Commission concludes that the Complaint raises an issue of material fact as to whether the Postal Service has violated 39 U.S.C. 403(c) in its treatment of blind mail for international mailers. The Commission determines that Complainants' remaining claims should be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction due to Complainants' failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Complainant Sai is a blind American citizen living in the United Kingdom who is the President of Fiat Fiendum, Inc., the other named Complainant. Complaint at 3. Complainants explain that the Universal Postal Convention (UPC), to which the United States is a party, mandates that the international mailing of certain items for the blind be free.
Complainants provide several examples of the manner in which the Postal Service is restricting the scope of free blind mail and describes how these restrictions harm blind mailers who, like them, need items shipped overseas. Complaint at 11-14. For instance, Complainants explain that a common item used by blind individuals is “a brailler—a specialized typewriter . . . that outputs braille embossing rather than ink.”
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Postal Service classifies Complainants' allegations as four separate claims, summarized as follows: (1) a claim asserting that the Postal Service improperly failed to categorize blind mail as a standalone class of mail; (2) a claim that the Postal Service's treatment of blind mail violates international treaty law; (3) a claim that the Postal Service discriminates against customers with blindness in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and 39 U.S.C. 403(c); and (4) a claim that the Postal Service has committed Constitutional violations. Motion to Dismiss at 1-2. According to the Postal Service, the international treaty, discrimination, and Constitutional claims should be dismissed because they do not fall within the Commission's jurisdiction.
Complainants respond that the Complaint provides adequate legal and factual grounds to deny the Motion to Dismiss.
At present, the determinative issue is whether the Complaint raises genuine issues of material fact or law within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Commission has jurisdiction over complaints that meet the statutory requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3662(a). Within 90 days after receiving a complaint under section 3662(a), the Commission must either (1) begin proceedings on the complaint upon finding that such complaint raises material issues of fact or law; or (2) issue an order dismissing the complaint.
Section 3662(a) permits any interested person to file a complaint with the Commission if they believe the Postal Service is not operating in conformance with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. chapter 36; 39 U.S.C. 101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 404a, or 601; or any regulations promulgated under any of those provisions.
Chapter 36 contains provisions in title 39 relating to rates, classes, and services.
Complainants allege that the Postal Service has “illegally” failed to classify blind mail as a separate and distinct class of mail. Complaint at 15. In response, the Postal Service asserts that this allegation fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Motion to Dismiss at 20. The Postal Service argues that the purpose of “classes” in the pricing system is to administer the price cap for market dominant products and that, because blind mail is shipped free, it is illogical to treat it as a separate class.
The Commission agrees that Complainants have failed to state a claim entitling them to relief. Though Complainants assert that the Postal Service must categorize blind mail as its own mail class, they do not identify any statute or regulation requiring such categorization.
As explained above, Complainants allege that the Postal Service's treatment of blind mail violates the UPC in numerous ways (for instance, by restricting its definition of who can receive free blind mail to exclude partially-sighted individuals, by restricting the weight for free blind mail, and by restricting free blind mail only to reading material).
The Postal Service is correct that Complainants have not alleged any violations of section 401(2) (or otherwise) sufficient to raise Commission jurisdiction over its UPC Claims. As the Commission has previously stated, a claim falls within section 401(2) “only if the Postal Service adopted, amended, or repealed rules or regulations inconsistent with title 39.” Order No. 2377 at 6. “Section 401(2) is not a `catch all' provision over which the Commission enjoys unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to 39 U.S.C. [] 3662(a).”
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Commission could appropriately hear the UPC claims, they would necessarily fail because the UPC provides no private right of action for its violation. Unless the text of an international treaty explicitly states otherwise, the presumption is that “international agreements, even those directly benefiting private persons, generally do not create private rights or provide for a private cause of action in domestic courts.”
Complainants assert that the Postal Service is infringing on their First and Fourth Amendment rights by prohibiting free blind mail from containing advertisements or being used for “a profit-making transaction” and by opening blind mail to determine its eligibility. Complaint at 19-21. In response, the Postal Service asserts that nonconformance with the U.S. Constitution is not a basis for Commission jurisdiction under section 3662 and, as such, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear the Complainants' Constitutional claims. As previously discussed, the Postal Service is correct in noting that Commission jurisdiction is constrained to the five specific sections (or subsections) of title 39 enumerated in section 3662 and that Constitutional violations are not included therein.
Complainants also assert that all of their allegations constitute “human rights and disability discrimination” in violation of section 403(c) and the Rehabilitation Act.
In terms of the Rehabilitation Act claim, the Postal Service is correct that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear such claims. In Docket No. C2023-11, the Commission previously analyzed allegations that the Postal Service had violated the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against a postal user based on her disability.
However, Complainants' discrimination claim under 39 U.S.C. 403(c) must be analyzed differently. Citing to the Commission's decision in Docket No. C2020-2, the Postal Service correctly notes that in order to state a claim for violation of 39 U.S.C. 403(c), a complainant must allege that “(1) the complainant is receiving less favorable services than those provided to one or more other postal customers, (2) the complainant is similarly situated to those postal customers receiving more favorable service, and (3) there is no rational or legitimate basis for denying the complainant the more favorable service currently being provided to those similarly situated postal customers.” Motion to Dismiss at 18 (citing Order No. 6880 at 13-14). In turn, the Postal Service asserts that:
The Postal Service is correct that, had Complainants alleged that blind mailers are being discriminated against in relation to the larger mailing population as a whole, such a claim would necessarily fail. However, taken in the light most favorable to them, Complainants' allegations are instead that blind mail users
This conclusion conforms with previous Commission precedent. In Docket No. R2018-1—a general Market Dominant rate case—the Chamber of Commerce argued that by setting mailing rates lower for foreign mailers than for American mailers, the Postal Service was violating section 403(c) by unreasonably discriminating against American mailers.
The Postal Service may very well have a rational reason for treating international mailers differently than domestic mailers in terms of blind mail, but that is a material issue of fact not before the Commission on a motion to dismiss. At this juncture, the Complaint has raised a genuine issue of material fact and law—namely, whether the Postal Service's treatment of blind mail unreasonably discriminates against foreign mailers in violation of section 403(c).
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106, the Commission appoints Joseph K. Press to serve as presiding officer to ascertain the outstanding issues of material fact and law in this matter. Parties may request that the presiding officer obtain specific discovery but may not independently propound discovery. The presiding officer shall examine the disputed issues identified above and provide a public, written intermediate decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues raised in this proceeding. 39 CFR 3010.335. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3022.30(c), John Avila is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
1. The Commission finds that the Complaint regarding blind mail, filed June 17, 2024, raises material issues of fact.
2. The United States Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss, filed July 8, 2024, is granted on all grounds except for the claim related to the alleged violation of 39 U.S.C. 403(c) as enumerated above.
3. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3022.12(b) and 3022.14, the Postal Service is directed to file an answer to Complainants' Complaint, “Errata & Addenda,” and Second Addendum (consolidated as one superseding, amended complaint) within 10 days of this Order.
4. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106, the Commission appoints Joseph K. Press as a presiding officer in this proceeding.
5. Parties may request that the presiding officer obtain specific discovery but may not independently propound discovery.
6. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3022.30(c), John Avila is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
7. The presiding officer shall, pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.335, provide a public written intermediate decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues raised in this proceeding.
8. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September XX, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service ® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend the Short Term Option Series Program in Rule 4.5(d). The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Short Term Option Series Program in Rule 4.5(d) (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Series Program to permit the listing of two Monday expirations for options on SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (“TLT”) (collectively “Exchange Traded Products” or “ETPs”).
Currently, as set forth in Rule 4.5(d), after an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange as a Short Term Option Series, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on that class that expire at the close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Friday Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates. Further, if the Exchange is not open for business on the respective Thursday or Friday, the Short Term Option Opening Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to that respective Thursday or Friday. Similarly, if the Exchange is not open for business on a Friday, the Short Term Option Expiration Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to that Friday.
Additionally, the Exchange may open for trading series of options on the symbols provided in Table 1 of Rule 4.5(d) that expire at the close of business on each of the next two Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, respectively, that are business days and are not business days in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Daily Expirations”).
At this time, the Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Daily Expirations to permit the listing and trading of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT expiring on Mondays. The Exchange proposes to permit two Short Term Option Expiration Dates beyond the current week for each Monday expiration at one time, and would update Table 1 in Rule 4.5(d) for each of those symbols accordingly.
The proposed Monday GLD, SLV, and TLT expirations will be similar to the current Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Short Term Option Daily Expirations set forth in Rule 4.5(d), such that the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day (beyond the current week) series of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT to expire on any Monday of the month that is a
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday ETP Expirations will be the same as those currently applicable for SPY, QQQ, and IWM Monday expirations in the Short Term Option Series Program.
Pursuant to Rule 4.5(d), with respect to the Short Term Option Series Program, if a Monday is not a business day, the series shall expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.
With this proposal, Monday ETP Expirations would be treated similarly to existing Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations. With respect to standard expiration option series, Short Term Option Daily Expirations will be permitted to expire in the same week in which standard expiration option series on the same class expire.
Further, as with Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations, the Exchange would not permit Monday ETP Expirations to expire on a business day in which standard expiration option series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire Monday for SPY, QQQ and IWM and has not experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. In addition, the Exchange has not experienced any market disruptions or issues with capacity in expanding the five ETPs to the Wednesday expirations.
Because the Exchange proposes to limit the number of Monday Expirations for options on GLD, SLV, and TLT to two expirations beyond the current week, the Exchange believes that the addition of these Monday ETP Expirations should encourage Market-Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve displayed market quality. Similar to SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday Expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to hedge their portfolios with options on commodities (gold and silver) as well as treasury securities, and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
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.
Similar to Monday expirations in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, the proposal to permit Monday ETP Expirations, subject to the proposed limitation of two expirations beyond the current week, would protect investors and the public interest by providing the investing public and other market participants more choice and flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in these options and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. The Exchange believes that there is general demand for alternative expirations in these symbols.
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in the proposed option expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series for Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support the new expirations. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of these option expirations. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its proposal is a modest expansion of weekly expiration dates for GLD, SLV, and TLT given that it will be limited to two Monday expirations beyond the current week.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act as the proposal would overall add a small number of Monday ETP Expirations by limiting the addition of two Monday expirations beyond the current week. The addition of Monday ETP Expirations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by encouraging Market Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve displayed market quality. The Exchange believes that the proposal will allow TPHs to expand hedging tools and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively in GLD, SLV, and TLT as these funds are most likely to be utilized by market participants to hedge the underlying asset classes. The ETPs currently trade within “complexes” where, in addition to the underlying security, there are multiple instruments available for hedging. Given the multi-asset class nature of these products and available hedges in highly correlated instruments, the Exchange believes that its proposal to add Monday expirations on these products will provide market participants with additional useful hedging tools for the underlying asset classes.
Similar to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations is consistent with the Act as it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on GLD, SLV, and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. Today, the Exchange lists Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations.
In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Monday ETP Expirations should simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the landscape of hedging.
There are no material differences in the treatment of Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations compared to the proposed Monday ETP Expirations. Given the similarities between Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations and the proposed Monday ETP Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in Rule 4.5(d) that currently apply to Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes that allowing Monday ETP Expirations and monthly ETP expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday ETP Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner.
Finally, the Exchange notes the proposed rule change is substantively the same as a rule change proposed by ISE, which the Commission recently approved.
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.
While the proposal will expand the Short Term Options Expirations to allow Monday ETP Expirations to be listed on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that this limited expansion for Monday expirations for options on GLD, SLV, and TLT will not impose an undue burden on competition; rather, it will meet customer demand. The Exchange believes that TPHs will continue to be able to expand hedging tools and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively in GLD, SLV, and TLT.
Similar to Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange believes that it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on GLD, SLV, and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Monday ETP Expirations. As noted above, the Commission recently approved a substantively identical proposal of another exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 206(3)-2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) which is entitled “Agency Cross Transactions for Advisory Clients,” permits investment advisers to comply with section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3)) by obtaining a client's blanket consent to enter into agency cross transactions (
The information requirements of the rule consist of the following: (1) prior to
The Commission estimates that approximately 362 respondents use the rule annually, necessitating about 65 responses per respondent each year, for a total of 23,530 responses. Each response requires an estimated 0.5 hours, for a total of 11,765 hours. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms.
This collection of information is found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) and is necessary in order for the investment adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule 206(3)-2. The collection of information requirements under the rule is mandatory. Information subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)-2 does not require submission to the Commission; and, accordingly, the disclosure pursuant to the rule is not kept confidential. Commission-registered investment advisers are required to maintain and preserve certain information required under Rule 206(3)-2 for five (5) years. The long-term retention of these records is necessary for the Commission's inspection program to ascertain compliance with the Advisers Act.
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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by November 18, 2024.
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.
Please direct your written comments to: Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation G (17 CFR 244.100-244.102) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78a
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by November 18, 2024.
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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act) provided that certain agencies, including the Commission, establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI).
The Contract Standard, which is included in the Commission's solicitations and resulting contracts for services with a dollar value of $100,000 or more, contains a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Contract Standard requires that a Commission contractor with 50 or more employees provide documentation, upon request from the OMWI Director, to demonstrate that it has made good faith efforts to ensure the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and, as applicable, to demonstrate its covered subcontractors have made such good faith efforts. The documentation requested may include, but is not limited to: (1) the total number of employees in the contractor's workforce, and the number of employees by race, ethnicity, gender, and job title or EEO-1 job category (
The information collection is mandatory.
On July 15, 2024, the Commission published a notice in the
Written comments continue to be invited on: (a) whether this 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 imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation Blackout Trade Restriction (“Regulation BTR”) (17 CFR 245.100-245.104) clarifies the scope and application of Section 306(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Act”) (15 U.S.C. 7244(a)). Section 306(a)(6) [15 U.S.C.7244(a)(6)] of the Act requires an issuer to provide timely notice to its directors and executive officers and to the Commission of the imposition of a blackout period that would trigger the statutory trading prohibition of Section 306(a)(1) [15 U.S.C. 7244(a)(1)]. Section 306(a) of the Act prohibits any director or executive officer of an issuer of any equity security, directly or indirectly, from purchasing, selling or otherwise acquiring or transferring any equity security of that issuer during any blackout period with respect to such equity security if the director or executive officer acquired the equity security in connection with his or her service or employment. Approximately 1,230 issuers file Regulation BTR notices approximately 5 times a year for a total of 6,150 responses. We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours to prepare the blackout notice for a total annual burden of 2,460 hours. The
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by November 18, 2024.
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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to securities listed on the Exchange, which are set forth in BZX Rule 14.13, Company Listing Fees. Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange submits this proposal to adopt new Rule 14.13(b)(2)(E)(iv) in order to create an annual pricing cap for Defined Distribution Strategy Series, as defined below, that are listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange is proposing to create a cap on annual fees where an issuer lists a series of ETPs that are each designed to provide (i) pre-defined set of cash distributions; (ii) over two specified periods with the first period beginning at inception until a pre-defined date and the second period beginning at that pre-defined date until another pre-defined date by which the ETP intends to distribute substantially all of its assets and liquidate the fund; (iii) where the first period defined distributions are based on the market conditions at the beginning of the first period, and the second period defined distributions are based on the market conditions at the beginning of the second period; and (iv) each employ the same strategy for achieving the pre-defined distributions (each a “Defined Distribution Strategy ETP” and collectively a “Defined Distribution Strategy Series”). The Exchange is proposing that such annual fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series will be capped at $16,000 per year.
As an example, a Defined Distribution Strategy ETP would include an ETP that
With this in mind, the Exchange is proposing to cap the maximum listing fee per year for a Defined Distribution Strategy Series at $16,000. Using the example above, if the issuer listed 10 ETPs employing the defined distribution strategy, the annual fee on a per ETP basis would be $7,000, and assuming each of the ETPs would otherwise be subject to the Exchange's maximum annual listing fee, a total of $70,000 for the Defined Distribution Strategy Series. Under the proposed fee cap, the Defined Distribution Strategy Series would be subject to a maximum total annual fee of $16,000 for the Defined Distribution Strategy Series, which would result in a $1,600 annual fee on a per ETP basis.
The proposed fee cap for Defined Distribution Strategy Series is identical to that applicable to Outcome Strategy Series
With this in mind, the Exchange is proposing to cap the maximum listing fee per year for a Defined Distribution Strategy Series at $16,000. The Exchange does not currently list any Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs on the Exchange but expects that at least one issuer will list such ETPs on the Exchange in the coming months.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments upon filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange also notes that its ETP listing business operates in a highly-competitive market in which ETP issuers can readily transfer their listings if they deem fee levels or any other factor at a particular venue to be insufficient or excessive. The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize issuers to list new products and transfer existing products to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will enhance competition both among ETP issuers and listing venues, to the benefit of investors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed cap on fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series and the associated changes is equitable because it is available to all issuers and applies equally to all Defined Distribution Strategy Series. The Exchange believes that providing a fee cap for such ETPs is a more reasonable and equitable approach than the current fee structure based on the unique features that create the need to offer multiple ETPs based on the same strategy.
The Exchange notes that the proposed fee structure is a cap on fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series and will only act to leave static or reduce fees for ETPs listed on the Exchange. Further, this proposal will decrease the fees associated with listing ETPs with varying time horizons on the Exchange, which will reduce the barriers to entry into the space and incentivize enhanced competition among issuers of Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs, to the benefit of investors.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed cap on fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series and the associated changes is not unfairly discriminatory because, while it only applies to Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs, it represents a significantly improved approach to annual listing fees for ETPs that by their nature require multiple listings. As noted above, Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs are similar to Outcome Strategy ETPs and warrant revisiting the ETP listing pricing model. Listing numerous ETPs with different time horizons allows investors the opportunity to choose the Defined Distribution Strategy ETP with the most appropriate time horizon for
Further, the Exchange notes that an issuer will only receive the benefit of the annual fee cap if they accrue greater than $16,000 in listing fees for a particular Defined Distribution Strategy Series. The Exchange notes that the proposed fee structure is a cap on fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series and will only act to leave static or reduce fees for ETPs listed on the Exchange. This proposal will decrease the fees associated with listing Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs on the Exchange, which will reduce the barriers to entry into the space and incentivize enhanced competition among issuers of Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs, also to the benefit of investors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed cap on fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series and the associated changes is a reasonable means to incentivize issuers to list (or transfer) Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs on the Exchange. The marketplace for listings is extremely competitive and there are several other national securities exchanges that offer ETP listings. Transfers between listing venues occur frequently for numerous reasons, including listing fees. The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize issuers to list new products and transfer existing products to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will enhance competition both among ETP issuers and listing venues, to the benefit of investors.
The Exchange believes that this proposal represents a significantly improved approach to annual listing fees for ETPs that by their nature require multiple listings. The proposed fee structure is a cap on fees for Defined Distribution Strategy Series and will only act to leave static or reduce fees for ETPs listed on the Exchange. This proposal is intended to help the Exchange compete as an ETP listing venue. Furthermore, the proposed fee cap is identical to that applied to Outcome Strategy Series, which similarly by their nature require multiple listings.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed change burdens competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX as a listing venue by providing better pricing for Defined Distribution Strategy Series. The marketplace for listings is extremely competitive and there are several other national securities exchanges that offer ETP listings. Transfers between listing venues occur frequently for numerous reasons, including listing fees. This proposal is intended to help the Exchange compete as an ETP listing venue. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of issuers or competing ETP listing venues to maintain their competitive standing. The Exchange also notes that the proposed change represents a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize issuers to list new products and transfer existing products to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will enhance competition both among ETP issuers and listing venues, to the benefit of investors. The Exchange believes that such proposed changes will directly enhance competition among ETP listing venues by reducing the costs associated with listing on the Exchange for Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs. Similarly, the Exchange believes that putting a cap on such ETPs will enhance competition both among listing venues of Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs and among issuers and issuances of Defined Distribution Strategy ETPs through an overall reduction of annual fees for listing such products. As such, the proposal is a competitive proposal designed to enhance pricing competition among listing venues and implement pricing for listings that better reflects the revenue and expenses associated with listing ETPs on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all issuers uniformly.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• 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”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BYX Equities”) by modifying the criteria of Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 and the rate associated with Add Volume Tier 1. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective September 3, 2024.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers five Add Volume Tiers that each provide a reduced fee for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes B,
• Add Volume Tier 1 provides a reduced fee of $0.0017 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
• Add Volume Tier 2 provides a reduced fee of $0.0014 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed criteria for Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 is as follows:
• Proposed Add Volume Tier 1 provides a reduced fee of $0.0016 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
• Proposed Add Volume Tier 2 provides a reduced fee of $0.0014 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to current Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 will continue to incentivize Members to add displayed liquidity to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market, which benefits all market participants and provides greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. While the proposed criteria in Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 is less difficult to achieve than the current criteria, the revised criteria continue to remain commensurate with the lower fees (including the proposed lower fee of Add Volume Tier 1) that will be assessed to a Member satisfying the proposed criteria.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that its proposal to modify the criteria of Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. Additionally, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes its proposal to modify the criteria of Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 is reasonable because the tiers will be available to all Members and provide all Members with an opportunity to receive a lower fee. The Exchange further believes that proposed Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 will provide a reasonable means to encourage adding displayed orders in Members' order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide volume to the Exchange by offering them an opportunity to receive a lower assessed fee on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
The Exchange believes proposed Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 are reasonable as they do not represent a significant departure from the criteria currently offered in the Fee Schedule and the proposed lower fee associated with Add Volume Tier 1 is commensurate with the proposed lower volume thresholds. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all
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. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, proposed Add Volume Tiers 1 and 2 will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for the tiers and reduced fees, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the proposed tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate on their qualifying orders if such criteria is met. The Exchange does not believe the proposed change burdens competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of BYX by amending existing pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17e-1 (17 CFR 270.17e-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
Based upon an analysis of fund filings on Form N-CEN, approximately 1,614 funds report reliance on rule 17e-1.
• 60 percent (48,420 hours) are spent by senior accountants, at an estimated hourly wage of $266,
• 30 percent (24,210 hours) are spent by in-house attorneys at an estimated hourly wage of $511, for a total of approximately $12,371,310 per year;
• 10 percent (8,070) are spent by the funds' board of directors at an hourly cost of $4,770, for a total of approximately $38,493,900 per year.
Based on these estimated wage rates, the total cost to the industry of the hour burden for complying with the review and recordkeeping requirements of rule 17e-1 is approximately $63,744,930.
Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by November 18, 2024.
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.
Please direct your written comments to: Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding certain transaction fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 30, 2024.
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 purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify certain transaction fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 30, 2024.
Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee for orders executed by taking liquidity from the disseminated market (“Take Liquidity Fee,” or “Take Fee”). For non-Customers and Professional Customers, the Exchange currently charges a per contract Take Fee of $1.10 for executions in non-Penny issues (the “non-Penny Take Fee”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that 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.”
There are currently 17 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to its non-Penny Take Fee for non-Customers is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is within the range of fees charged by competing option exchanges.
The proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all similarly-situated participants. Specifically, non-Customers will be subject to the increased non-Penny Take Fee (from $1.10 to $1.20 per contract) while both Professional Customers and Customers will continue to pay $1.10 and $0.85 per contract, respectively. Although the proposed fee increase applies solely to non-Customers, the Exchange notes that resulting fees are in line with or below the fees charged by other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that maintaining the non-Penny Take Fee for Professional Customers (and Customers) at the current rate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Professional Customers are a different type of market participant than non-Customers Firm, Broker Dealers and Market Makers. Specifically, Professional Customers are not brokers or dealers in securities; they are persons (or entities) that place more than 390 orders per day on average for their own beneficial account.
Finally, the Exchange has historically provided more favorable pricing to Customers. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. As such, the Exchange believes that maintaining the non-Penny Take Fee for Customers is consistent with the Act, which rate is within the range of fees charged by competing option exchanges.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of intra-market competition, as discussed herein, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any category of market participant at a competitive disadvantage because it will apply uniformly to all similarly-situated participants (
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As noted herein, the proposed fee change is competitive as it is within the range of fees charged by competing option exchanges.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection
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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Kansas dated September 11, 2024.
Issued on September 11, 2024.
Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: November 12, 2024. Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: June 11, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
Incident: Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Tornadoes, and Flooding.
Incident Period: April 25, 2024 through April 30, 2024.
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20519B and for economic injury is 205200.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Kansas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 4.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4806-DR), dated August 10, 2024.
Issued on September 13, 2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated August 10, 2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida (FEMA-4806-DR), dated August 28, 2024.
Issued on September 13, 2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Florida, dated 08/28/2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of State hereby provides notice of the next meeting of the President's Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement (“the Advisory Council”).
October 8, 2024.
This event will take place virtually. A link will be provided to those who RSVP (see below).
For additional information and for those interested in participating, please contact Mr. Matthew Becker, Senior Foreign Affairs Officer in the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, U.S. Department of State by email at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
In accordance with Executive Order 14089, the Advisory Council will host its third engagement of the year on October 8, 2024. Members of the Advisory Council will meet virtually to discuss progress made to date and next steps on Council recommendations to the President.
Meetings are open to the public. Interested members of the public may receive details on how to join the virtual meeting by contacting Designated Federal Officer Matthew Becker at
Established in accordance with Executive Order 14089, the Advisory Council operates under the overarching authority of the Secretary of State and the Department of State, as outlined in title 22 of the United States Code. Specifically, its mandate aligns with Section 2656 of that Title and adheres to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Hondo Railway, LLC (HRC), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from South Texas Liquid Terminal, Inc. (STLT), 13,200 feet of track in the vicinity of Hondo, Tex. in Medina County (the Line).
According to the verified notice, HRC has operated over the Line pursuant to a lease agreement between HRC and STLT since 2006. See
The verified notice states that the parties have reached an agreement pursuant to which HRC will convert its existing leasehold interest in the Line to fee ownership. HRC states that, following consummation of the proposed transaction, HRC will continue to operate the Line as it has since 2006.
HRC certifies that the proposed acquisition of the Line does not involve any interchange commitments. HRC further certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
The effective date of the exemption will be established in a separate decision.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than September 23, 2024.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36803, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on HRC's representative, Kelvin J. Dowd, Slover & Loftus LLP, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036.
According to HRC, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Macquarie Infrastructure Partners V GP, LLC (MIP GP), a noncarrier, filed on behalf of Macquarie Infrastructure Partners V fund vehicle (MIP V), MIP V Rail, LLC (MIP Rail), Pinsly Holdco, LLC, and Pinsly Railroad Company, LLC (Pinsly),
Pinsly is wholly owned by Pinsly Holdco, LLC, which is wholly owned by MIP Rail, which is wholly owned, indirectly, by MIP V, which is controlled by MIP GP. According to the verified notice of exemption, as part of the overall transaction in this docket, Pinsly Holdco, LLC, a new noncarrier holding company will be placed between Pinsly and MIP Rail in the chain of control. The verified notice states that, “[b]ecause the inclusion of such an intermediate subsidiary does not constitute a change of control, no Board approval is required.” (Verified Notice 2 n.1 (citing
The verified notice states that, pursuant to an agreement dated August 27, 2024,
MIP GP states that: (1) the line over which HRC operates does not connect with any of the railroads that would be in the same corporate family following the transaction; (2) the proposed transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect HRC with any railroad in the corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the proposed transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
The effective date of the exemption will be established in a separate decision.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than September 23, 2024.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36802, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on MIP GP's representative, Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
According to MIP GP, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated April 23, 2024, Texas & Eastern Railroad (TESR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2014-0014.
Specifically, TESR requests to extend the existing relief
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by November 18, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated August 1, 2024, BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2018-0049.
Specifically, BNSF requests to extend the existing waiver, which provides BNSF certain relief from 49 CFR 232.15,
In support of its request, BNSF explained that data from the BHE program has demonstrated “improved safety performance of brake systems” across the BNSF network. The program has also “increased employee safety by eliminating the potential for injury to inspection personnel due to slips, trips, or falls when performing intermediate brake tests or when setting out or repairing cars outside of mechanical or yard limits.” Additionally, BNSF noted that the BHE program is supported by BNSF's union partners, specifically the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, who has worked closely with BNSF.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by November 18, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated April 23, 2024, Texas & Eastern Railroad (TESR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to extend a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 224 (Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0086.
Specifically, TESR requested to extend the previous special approval pursuant to 49 CFR 215.203,
In support of its request, TESR stated that tourist passenger operations run up to 30 miles per hour, and that TESR “exercises complete control of the operation and maintenance” of the subject cars. TESR added that the cars have not been interchanged in regular freight operations with other railroads and are primarily used for mobile storage. They are also used with steam and diesel locomotives in trains for photography, historic documentation, and film production. TESR explained
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by November 18, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters dated May 14, 2024, and August 19, 2024, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an amendment of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service (HOS) laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which, in part, require a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive days. The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2009-0078.
Specifically, ASLRRA seeks to amend its existing waiver to add 3 railroads that did not participate in the original waiver, but now wish to participate. ASLRRA stated the following railroads expressed a desire to participate in the waiver, and maintain at their headquarters supporting documentation of employee support, as required:
Additionally, ASLRRA stated that the Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad will be removed from the list of participating railroads, which was requested by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) by letter dated May 20, 2024.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by November 18, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Request for information and comment; extension of comment period.
On July 31, 2024, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the “agencies”) published in the
The comment period for the notice that published at 89 FR 61577 (July 31, 2024) is extended. Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2024.
Comments should be directed to:
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
•
•
•
•
•
On July 31, 2024, the agencies published in the
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Lisa M. Palluconi, Acting Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 12, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. MENESES RODRIGUEZ, Antonio Jose, Venezuela; DOB 10 Dec 1980; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V14316687 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela,” 80 FR 12747, 3 CFR, 2015 Comp., p. 276 (March 11, 2015) (E.O. 13692), as amended by Executive Order 13857 of January 25, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela,” 84 FR 509, 3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p. 251 (January 30, 2019) (E.O. 13857), for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
2. HIDALGO PANDARES, Juan Carlos (a.k.a. “PANDARES, Juan Carlos”), Venezuela; DOB 20 Oct 1961; POB Maracay, Aragua, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V7220202 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
3. BUSTAMANTE PUERTA, Dinorah Yoselin (a.k.a. BUSTAMANTE PUERTA, Dinora Joselin; a.k.a. BUSTAMANTE PUERTA, Dinora Yoselin), Venezuela; DOB 14 Jan 1975; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Female; Cedula No. V10002096 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
4. MARQUEZ CORDERO, Fanny Beatriz, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 05 Feb 1969; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Female; Cedula No. 6272864 (Venezuela); Passport 054208483 (Venezuela) expires 01 Feb 2017 (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for
5. BRITO HERNANDEZ, Asdrubal Jose, Venezuela; DOB 06 Jan 1974; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 12251274 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
6. HERNANDEZ LAREZ, Johan Alexander, Venezuela; DOB 30 Jan 1971; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 9888327 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
7. MUNOZ PALACIOS, Miguel Antonio, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 12 Jul 1964; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 6186648 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
8. DUENEZ REYES, Luis Ernesto, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 20 Aug 1988; POB San Cristobal, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 18880942 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
9. GIL RODRIGUEZ, Malaquias (a.k.a. “RODRIGUEZ, Malaquias”), Carache, Trujillo, Venezuela; DOB 27 Feb 1960; POB Trujillo, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V5352190 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
10. GIL PACHECO, Rosalba, Venezuela; DOB 18 Mar 1965; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Female; Cedula No. V6186648 (Venezuela); Passport 045745320 (Venezuela) expires 09 Aug 2020 (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
11. INFANTE APARICIO, Pedro Jose (a.k.a. “APARICIO, Pedro Jose”), Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 01 Sep 1981; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V15541220 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
12. FIGUEROA ARIZALETA, Inocencio Antonio (a.k.a. “ARIZALETA, Inocencio Antonio”), Calle Piramide Red Majestic Park Torre D Apto 25 Urb Miranda, Sucre, Miranda 1090, Venezuela; DOB 17 Dec 1959; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 5016509 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
13. ESTRADA PAREDES, Elio Ramon, Capital District, Venezuela; DOB 02 Dec 1966; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 6857541 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
14. BRICENO CISNEROS, Edward Miguel, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 11 Mar 1986; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 17514632 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
15. HERNANDEZ LAREZ, Domingo Antonio, Capital District, Venezuela; DOB 09 Mar 1965; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 6133376 (Venezuela); Passport B0700456 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
16. RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ, Caryslia Beatriz, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 16 Jul 1967; POB Maracay, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Female; Cedula No. 8671555 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
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. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 15426, IRS Governmental Liaison (GL) Data Exchange Request.
Written comments should be received on or before November 18, 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 to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-2128, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Departmental Offices proposes to establish a new Treasury system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices .413—Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System” for information collected in connection with the implementation of the Executive order, “Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern.” This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the
Written comments must be received by October 21, 2024. The new routine uses will be applicable on October 21, 2024 unless Treasury receives comments and determines that changes to the system of records notice are necessary.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Treasury encourages comments to be submitted via
For general questions and questions regarding privacy issues, please contact: Ryan Law, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622-5710.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended (the Privacy Act), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Departmental Offices proposes to establish a new system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices .413—Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System” for information collected in connection with the implementation of Executive Order 14105 of August 9, 2023, 88 FR 54867 (the Outbound Order).
As background, on August 9, 2023, the President issued the Outbound Order, which declares a national emergency to address the threat to the United States posed by countries of concern, which seek to develop and exploit sensitive technologies or products critical for military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities. Among other things, the Outbound Order directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations that require U.S. persons to provide notification of information to Treasury regarding certain transactions involving a person of a country of concern that is engaged in certain activities involving covered national security technologies and products that may contribute to the threat to the national security of the United States as identified under the Outbound Order. The Outbound Order also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations that prohibit certain transactions by a U.S. person involving a person of a country of concern that is engaged in certain activities involving covered national security technologies and products that pose a particularly acute national security threat to the United States. The Outbound Order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to exempt from applicable notification or prohibition requirements any transaction or transactions determined to be in the national interest of the United States. On August 9, 2023, Treasury issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 88 FR 54961 (published August 14, 2023), to explain initial considerations and seek public comment on implementation of the Outbound Order.
On June 21, 2024, Treasury issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to seek public comment on the proposed rule, 89 FR 55846 (published July 5, 2024). As described in the NPRM, Treasury intends to require U.S. persons to provide notification of certain transactions under its implementing regulations. This information would include relevant details on the U.S. person(s) involved in the transaction as well as information on the transaction and the foreign person(s) involved. These notifications would increase the U.S. Government's visibility into transactions by U.S. persons or their controlled foreign entities and involving technologies and products relevant to the threat to the national security of the United States due to the policies and actions of countries of concern. These notifications would also be helpful in highlighting aggregate sector trends and related capital flows as well as informing future policy development. Treasury also intends to require any U.S. person seeking a national interest exemption for a particular transaction to submit information to Treasury regarding the scope of that transaction including, as applicable, the information that would be required for a notification under the implementing regulations (such transactions, together with transactions that would be required to be notified to Treasury, are
The new system of records will support Treasury's collection of information in the performance of its analysis of these transactions, and for other purposes associated with its national security functions. The system may include records from other systems of records both within Treasury and in records provided by certain other Executive Branch agencies. Any records from another Treasury system of records or another Executive Branch agency's system of records for which an exemption is claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) that may also be included in this system of records retain the same exempt status as such records have in the system for which such exemption is claimed. Treasury will consult with the Department of Commerce and, as appropriate, certain other Executive Branch agencies on analysis of transactions consistent with the Outbound Order. Records will be protected according to applicable rules and policies with system access being limited to individuals who need to know the information for the performance of their official duties.
The related information collections have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget on July 8, 2024 under control number: 202407-1505-002.
Additionally, Treasury's Departmental Offices is issuing a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
This established system will be included in Treasury's inventory of record systems. Below is the description of the “Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices .413—Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System.”
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Treasury has provided a report of this new system to OMB and to the U.S. Congress.
Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices .413—Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System.
Classified.
Records are maintained at the Departmental Offices: 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
a. Director, Office of Investment Security Policy and International Relations, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
b. Director, Office of Global Transactions Review, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
c. Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
31 U.S.C. 321; 5 U.S.C. 301; 44 U.S.C. 1301; E.O. 9397, 12333, 12968, 13478, 13526, 14105
The purpose of this system is to collect information submitted by the relevant party regarding certain transactions notified to Treasury, and other available information related to such transactions, and disseminate such information to the Department of Commerce and, as appropriate, certain other Executive Branch agencies, in connection with the analysis of such transactions consistent with the Outbound Order.
The system covers individual U.S. persons that are party to or otherwise involved in a transaction notified to Treasury and whose information is provided to Treasury through the notifications or through other means. The term “U.S. person” is defined in the NPRM, and consistent with the Outbound Order, to mean “any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including any foreign branch of any such entity, or any person in the United States.”
Records consist of information submitted to Treasury regarding certain transactions notified to Treasury and other available information related to such transactions. Records include, but may not be limited to, the following information, which is being collected either pursuant to the Outbound Order and implementing regulations or as needed to administer the Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System.
(1) Full name (last, middle, first)
(2) Position/job title
(3) Email address (personal/business)
(4) Mailing address (personal/business)
(5) Phone number (personal/business); and
(6) Employer (name and business location)
The information contained in the records in the Outbound Investment Security Program Notification System may be provided by the individual who is the subject of the record, their representative, the representative of an entity filing a notification to Treasury, or through other means.
Only to the extent consistent with the Outbound Order and the implementing regulations, and in addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records and/or information or portions thereof maintained as part of this system may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons, including the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), when such records and/or information or portions thereof are relevant to any judicial or administrative action or proceeding;
(2) To any domestic governmental entity, or to any foreign governmental entity of a United States partner or ally, where the information or documentary materials are important to the national security analysis or actions of such governmental entity or Treasury, subject to appropriate confidentiality and classification requirements;
(3) To Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress;
(4) To the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;
(5) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) Treasury suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) Treasury has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, Treasury (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is
(6) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when Treasury determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;
(7) To the Department of Commerce and, as appropriate, certain other Executive Branch agencies, consistent with the Outbound Order and the implementing regulations; and,
(8) To parties to transactions when Treasury requires additional information or clarification on issues related to individuals involved in the transaction.
Records in this system are stored in security controlled physical locations, using information technology that follows federal information security standards and directives.
Records in this system may be retrieved, for authorized purposes, by name or another unique identifier.
Records in this system are maintained in a secure IT system following federal information security standards and directives and in security controlled physical locations according to the General Records Schedule 5.2, item 020, Intermediary Records. Records will be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Records Act and applicable record retention schedules.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable Treasury information systems security and access policies. Strict controls are imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have appropriate permissions and a need to know for the performance of their official duties. User activity is recorded by the system for audit purposes. Electronic records are encrypted at rest and in transit. Records are maintained in buildings subject to 24-hour security.
See “Notification Procedures” below.
See “Notification Procedures” below.
The Secretary of the Treasury has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it contains classified information and investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act. Subject to the foregoing, Treasury will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, Appendix A. Requests for information and specific guidance on where to send requests for records may be addressed to Director, FOIA Services, Department of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Treasury system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 31 CFR 1.26. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Director, FOIA Services, Department of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
Certain records in this system are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2).
None.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
NHTSA proposes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that would ensure passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or less are designed to mitigate the risk of serious to fatal injury in child and adult pedestrian crashes. The proposed standard would establish test procedures simulating a head-to-hood impact and performance requirements to minimize the risk of head injury. This NPRM is based on a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian protection, with focused enhancements to address safety problems and a regulatory framework unique to the United States.
Comments must be received on or before November 18, 2024.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of this document.
For non-legal issues: Vincent Wu, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: (202) 366-1740, fax (202) 493-2990). For legal issues: Matthew Filpi, Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-3179). The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Improving pedestrian safety is a high priority of the Department of Transportation. Data show pedestrian fatalities increasing substantially in recent years. NHTSA issues this NPRM in an effort to address this safety problem. This NPRM proposes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that would ensure that passenger vehicles are designed to reduce the risk of serious to fatal child and adult head injury in pedestrian crashes. This rulemaking initiates the process of adopting a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian protection as an FMVSS, with focused enhancements to the GTR to address safety problems and a regulatory framework unique to the U.S. In addition, this NPRM furthers the goals and policies of DOT's January 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy, which describes the five key objectives of the Department's Safe System Approach: safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care.
New Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 228,
This NPRM is part of a multi-step approach to enhance vehicle performance against pedestrian injury. First, it initiates the process of adopting Global Technical Regulation No. 9 (GTR 9), “Pedestrian safety,” into the Federal safety standards. NHTSA has collaborated with governments internationally to develop GTR 9, and numerous countries have adopted the GTR into their regulations. FMVSS No. 228 would establish a pedestrian standard domestically, to ensure that all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) or less manufactured in or imported into the United States—including a sub-group of light trucks (large pickups and large SUVs) more common in the U.S. than in other parts of the world—mitigate the risk of serious head injury to pedestrians.
Second, the standard would provide a regulatory counterpart to NHTSA's planned crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in the near term.
Third, this rulemaking proposing FMVSS No. 228 is intended to work hand-in-hand with the growth and expansion of automatic emergency braking (AEB) technologies. An AEB system uses various sensor technologies and sub-systems that work together to detect when the vehicle is in a crash imminent situation, to automatically apply the vehicle brakes if the driver has not done so, or to apply more braking force to supplement the driver's braking. AEB systems were originally developed to detect a crash imminent situation with a lead vehicle, but AEB is in a state of rapid advancement and some of the systems on the market now also warn about, and respond to, an imminent collision with a pedestrian. Pedestrian AEB (PAEB) systems are designed to stop the vehicle automatically before striking a pedestrian or reduce the speed at which an impact occurs if the vehicle's initial speed is too high to avoid impact. On May 9, 2024, NHTSA published a final rule requiring AEB and PAEB systems on light vehicles which adopts FMVSS No. 127.
This NPRM proposes FMVSS No. 228 and aligns with the goals of DOT's January 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy, which describes the five key objectives of the Department's Safe System Approach: safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care. FMVSS No. 228 would mandate requirements for safer vehicles and leverage advanced crash avoidance technology like PAEB in conjunction with the crashworthiness countermeasures based on GTR 9 to realize far-reaching improvements to pedestrian safety. NHTSA also notes that although research into vulnerable
Issuance of this NPRM is also consistent with the goals of the November 15, 2021, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
Although GTR 9 was established in 2008 when light trucks and vans (LTVs), which includes large light trucks, MPVs (including SUVs) and vans, were not as common as they are now in the U.S., LTVs did exist then, and the GTR test procedure included in proposed FMVSS No. 228 was developed to be relevant and applicable to these LTV vehicles. The test procedure proposed for use in FMVSS No. 228 is relevant for use with all light vehicles in the U.S. fleet because it is based on a Wrap Around Distance (WAD) measurement appropriate for use with passenger cars and LTVs. The defined “Hood Area” (subject to proposed FMVSS No. 228 coverage) is based on WAD, so any differences in head impact locations for a given crash scenario between LTVs and passenger cars are accounted for in the WAD-based test. As described in sections V.-VII., in the proposed test, NHTSA would use impactor testing to simulate a head-to-hood or head-to-fender top impact. It would specify the use of two different impactors: one representative of the head of a struck 6-year-old child (child headform) and another representative of the head of a struck 50th percentile adult male pedestrian (adult headform). The WAD measurement assures that the areas of the hood subject to impactor testing are the areas likely to be struck by a pedestrian's head. NHTSA has performed the WAD-based test of GTR 9 on a wide variety of vehicles, including LTVs of various shapes and sizes. These data have been used to generate the benefit-cost analysis for this NPRM, which NHTSA discusses in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) accompanying this NPRM. The PRIA, discussed in detail in sections below, calculates benefits and costs separately for passenger cars and LTVs.
Because the WAD-based test procedure of the GTR is technically suitable for small and large vehicles, this NPRM's regulatory text reflects the wording of GTR 9 to show the GTR's provisions implemented in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Throughout this preamble, however, NHTSA requests comments on the pros and cons of various aspects of the NPRM's regulatory text, particularly with respect to the areas of the vehicle that would be subject to headform testing strictly using the GTR procedure. Throughout this preamble, NHTSA focuses readers on ways NHTSA believes the proposed regulatory text could be enhanced in a final rule to achieve more safety benefits in the U.S. For example, we discuss an approach of potentially extending the test area to the grille area on all large vehicles where the head of a child or shorter adult pedestrian may be struck. With pedestrian injury and fatality rates climbing, and with lessons learned from NHTSA's NCAP and other NCAP programs engaged in headform testing of vehicle front ends, NHTSA seeks to design FMVSS No. 228 to be as effective as possible to address pedestrian safety needs in the U.S.
Accordingly, this NPRM discusses specific approaches that NHTSA is considering to possibly tailor the GTR text for a final rule. While the NPRM's regulatory text reflects the GTR's approaches and provides a framework for an FMVSS based on those provisions, NHTSA may determine to make changes in any final rule. Ultimately, NHTSA seeks to issue a final rule that would “fully meet the need in the U.S. for vehicle safety.”
In collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, the pedestrian is typically struck from the side while walking across the vehicle's path. When a pedestrian is struck in this manner, the first point of contact typically occurs between the front-end of the vehicle and the lateral aspect of the pedestrian's leg near the knee region. As the lower leg becomes fully engaged with the vehicle's front-end, the leading edge of the hood strikes the lateral aspect of the pedestrian's pelvis or upper leg. Then, as the lower leg is kicked forward and away from the front-end of the vehicle, the pedestrian's upper body swings abruptly downward towards the hood until the head strikes the vehicle. Research indicates that the linear head impact velocity ranges between 60 and 110 percent of the initial contact velocity.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 is designed to mitigate injuries to pedestrians hit from the side as described above. Most pedestrian injuries (79%) and fatalities (83%) are caused by the frontal structures of vehicles.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would use impactor testing simulating a head-to-
The following figure generally depicts the areas of a vehicle that would be subject to FMVSS No. 228 testing, particularly the Hood Top and Hood Area (which share a boundary in this example and are contained within the dashed lines), and the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas (darkly shaded areas). The figure illustrates other terms and concepts used in the proposed standard. All of the terms used in the figure are fully explained in this preamble.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would specify performance requirements limiting the accelerations measured by the headforms. The HIC must be less than 1000 (HIC1000) over a certain portion of the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas.
To meet the HIC limits, hoods would be required to have protective countermeasures that attenuate the energy of the impact during initial contact of the headform, and/or that provide sufficient clearance (open areas) to prevent the headform from bottoming out on objects beneath the hood. The countermeasures would have to ensure that the hood is not too stiff (such a hood would fail the HIC requirement) and not too soft (a too soft hood could also fail because the headform could penetrate down to the level of a hard, immovable structure beneath the hood). Among other objectives, an effective design balances hood stiffness with depth of penetration.
FMVSS No. 228 would apply to passenger cars and to MPVs, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
This NPRM is economically significant under Executive Order 12866 due to the benefits estimated to result from the proposed standard. NHTSA's PRIA analyzes the potential impacts of proposed FMVSS No. 228. NHTSA has placed a copy of the PRIA in the docket for this NPRM.
NHTSA estimates that the proposal would mitigate approximately 67.4 fatalities annually, even after accounting for the effect of PAEB. (However, as explained in detail in sections below, the count of
In 2020, 38,824 people died on U.S. roads. Of this number, 25,536 were passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, a decrease from 32,225 in 2000.
The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities (98% or 6,132) are due to a single striking vehicle.
Most injuries resulting from collisions between vehicles and pedestrians are inflicted by the frontal structures of vehicles, the majority of which occur when vehicle travel speeds are lower than 40 km/h (25 mph) (see figure V.2). Pedestrians sustaining life-threatening injuries typically have head and thorax injuries caused by contact with the vehicle. A NHTSA study using both U.S. and German crash data found that the head and lower extremities are the most common injury locations on a struck pedestrian.
Studies have found a high prevalence of five crash types in collisions between vehicles and pedestrians.
• Dart-out (first half)—where the pedestrian appears suddenly midblock, often from between parked cars, presents a limited exposure time to the driver and is struck less than halfway across the roadway.
• Dart-out (second half)—similar to the Dart-out (first half) except the pedestrian is struck after crossing half or more of the roadway.
• Intersection dash—where the pedestrian presents a short time exposure to the driver at an intersection either because the pedestrian runs across the intersection, is blocked from view, or crosses unexpectedly.
• Multiple threat—where a vehicle stops for a crossing pedestrian and, in so doing, blocks the pedestrian from the view of the driver in a second car that is overtaking the first car (includes intersection and midblock situations).
• Vehicle turn/merge—where the driver is concentrating on turning into or merging with traffic and does not see the pedestrian.
New Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 228,
FMVSS No. 228 would affect vehicles involved in the majority of fatal pedestrian crashes: passenger cars, light trucks (pickups), and MPVs (vans, crossover vehicles and SUVs) (see table II.1). Sales are trending toward more non-passenger cars. Light trucks and MPVs as a percentage of light vehicle sales have steadily increased from 52% in 2011 to 77% in 2020.
In a pedestrian crash, the vehicle striking the pedestrian is usually the only vehicle involved; the vast majority are single vehicle collisions in which the vehicle-to-pedestrian collision is the only harmful event. For fatalities, of front end striking vehicle types, there is about an even split between passenger cars (43 percent) and light trucks and MPVs (42 percent). Large trucks (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)), which are not covered by this proposal, are responsible for 6 percent of fatal front end to pedestrian strikes. Buses (covered by this NPRM only if they have a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less) are responsible for 0.5 percent of fatal strikes and the remaining fatal strikes (8 percent) are caused by unknown vehicle types. The percentages for non-fatal injuries show a different distribution, with passenger cars representing 58 percent of front end striking vehicles and light trucks representing 40 percent.
In 2020, of all motor-vehicle related fatalities and injuries (including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc.) pedestrians accounted for 16 percent of all fatalities and 4 percent of injuries in the under 16 age group; pedestrians accounted for 12 percent of all motor vehicle-related fatalities and 2 percent of injuries in the age group 16-34; and pedestrians accounted for 19 percent of fatalities and 3 percent of injuries in the age group 35-44. For the age groups of 45-64 and 65 and older, the fatality figures were 21 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Injuries for these two groups were both 3 percent.
This proposal addresses the injuries and fatalities resulting from head impacts to the front of the vehicle. The derivation of the target population is described in detail in the PRIA accompanying this proposal. A summary of the PRIA is contained in section XIII of this proposal.
NHTSA protects pedestrians through rulemaking, consumer information provided by the agency's New Car Assessment Program, safety research, and public education programs to improve safe driving and walking practices.
Over many years, NHTSA has studied the feasibility of additional countermeasures to reduce the severity of pedestrian leg, upper body, and head injuries. In 1981, NHTSA issued an NPRM
NHTSA, however, continued its research into child and adult pedestrian protection. The agency collaborated closely with other countries to harmonize international procedures and requirements,
On June 25, 1998, the U.S. became the first signatory to the “Agreement Concerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles,” commonly referred to as the 1998 Agreement.
By establishing GTRs under the 1998 Agreement, governmental organizations (Contracting Parties) seek to harmonize motor vehicle regulations at the regional and national levels.
In deciding whether to adopt a GTR as an FMVSS, NHTSA follows the applicable procedural and substantive requirements for rulemaking, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. 301), Presidential executive orders, and DOT and NHTSA policies, procedures and regulations.
In developing GTR 9, NHTSA collaborated with experts from contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement,
A number of countries have implemented GTR 9.
GTR 9 has two sets of performance requirements: (a) for the hood top and fenders tested by a headform impact; and (b) for the vehicle front-end area (encompassing the bumper and grille) tested by a legform impact. Vehicle hoods conforming to the GTR's specifications mitigate child and adult pedestrian head injury, and bumpers and grilles conforming to the GTR reduce the risk of adult leg injury. This NPRM proposes to implement the GTR's provisions for the hood top and fenders. The May 6, 2023, NCAP RFC proposed to amend NHTSA's NCAP program to
This rulemaking initiates the process of adopting GTR 9 into the Federal safety standards. This NPRM proposes to implement the head protection requirements of GTR 9 as FMVSS No. 228. The proposed standard modifies some of the GTR's provisions to address the regulatory framework and needs unique to the United States. From years of researching pedestrian head protection using the procedures described in the GTR and applying the procedures to the front-end designs of today, NHTSA has seen instances where the GTR is silent or unclear about its application to some aspects of hood design. Because clarity is needed for the FMVSS, NHTSA has addressed these areas with detailed procedures and criteria in this NPRM that, by design, are consistent with the GTR and with NHTSA's Safety Act provisions. NHTSA has incorporated these clarifications into proposed FMVSS No. 228 so that the standard's procedures are objective and repeatable and meet the need for safety, in accordance with Safety Act requirements. As discussed throughout this document, this NPRM also focuses readers on other ways NHTSA is considering modifying the GTR test procedures for clarity or to push more safety benefits from the U.S. fleet. An example of the latter is NHTSA's consideration of narrowing the border surrounding a test area so that more of the vehicle's hood and fender area would have to meet the HIC requirements.
In drafting FMVSS No. 228, NHTSA's goal has been to produce a proposal that is true to the agency's understanding of GTR 9 and to the technical best practices provided by the GTR, so as to “fully meet the need in the U.S. for vehicle safety.”
NHTSA has also shaped this proposal to provide the minimum level of safety required to address the needs we face in this country. NHTSA is aware that other countries have implemented the regulation in some ways that differ from our reading of the regulation in ways that reduce the safety minimum even further. For example, this NPRM adds clarification regarding how the agency will determine the amount of testable hood area that must meet a head injury criterion (HIC) of 1000 or less, compared to a HIC of 1700 or less. This is described more fully in section VI.A of this preamble. UNECE Reg. No. 127 has implemented the GTR 9 in a way that produces a smaller area that must comply with HIC1000 than that which results from the GTR as NHTSA understands it, or as NHTSA proposes in this NPRM to address the growing pedestrian safety needs in this country. In section VIII of this preamble, we provide a detailed discussion of a proposed amendment to GTR 9 that NHTSA has not supported because of its potential to reduce the area subject to headform testing. NHTSA discusses throughout this preamble the differences between this proposed FMVSS No. 228 and the current GTR 9, and the reasons for those differences.
FMVSS No. 228 would prohibit vehicles from exceeding a certain HIC level when subjected to testing simulating a head-to-hood impact. The standard is designed to provide head protection to a walking child and a walking adult when side-struck. This posture was chosen because it represents one of the most common interactions between vehicles and pedestrians. The side-struck posture is also regarded as “worst case.”
The proposed standard defines each hood as having two distinct areas: one where a struck child pedestrian's head would impact (Child Headform Test Area) and one where an adult pedestrian's head would impact (Adult Headform Test Area), both in a 40 km/h (25 mph) vehicle impact. The proposed performance requirements are based on HIC as computed from the acceleration of the headform upon impact. FMVSS No. 228 would limit HIC when tested with the headforms.
The location of a pedestrian's head impact on the hood is dependent on several variables, including the speed of the vehicle impact, the vehicle front-end shape, and the height of the pedestrian. Proposed FMVSS No. 228 is designed so that vehicle countermeasures to meet the HIC limits would benefit pedestrians of all sizes. In section VI of this preamble, we explain in detail the specific areas of the hood that would be regulated under the proposal, as well as considerations for expanding this area.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 includes detailed procedures that define reference lines on the vehicle from which NHTSA would calculate the area of the vehicle that must provide pedestrian head protection. Proposed FMVSS No. 228's wrap around distance (WAD) procedure is a simple procedure used in several sections of GTR 9 to identify various reference lines on the hood. Reference lines that run laterally across the hood are drawn relative to a specified WAD. Those lines are referred to herein as WAD lines. NHTSA helped develop the WAD procedure for
The WAD is the distance from a point on the ground directly below the bumper's most forward edge, at a specific lateral location, to a designated point on the hood, as measured with a flexible measuring device, such as a non-stretch flexible wire. During measurement of the WAD, the device (the non-stretch flexible wire) is held taut, to measure distances while being held in a vertical longitudinal (x-z) vehicle plane. A WAD of a specified distance can identify a point on the vehicle's hood. A WAD line can be drawn on a vehicle by connecting the end points of the wire as it traverses across the front of the vehicle. We can create a WAD line using wires of different lengths,
A WAD line can be objectively determined and is a good indicator of where head impacts are likely to occur on any particular hood.
The proposed standard has certain key elements to replicate the real-world 40 km/h (25 mph) impact in an objective and enforceable manner. The key elements are:
• Relevance to the vehicles involved in pedestrian crashes at 40 km/h (25 mph);
• A methodology incorporating component testing of the hood using headforms representing child and adult pedestrians;
• Performance requirements based on HIC as measured by the headforms;
• A hood mark-off procedure to denote test areas; and
• Flexibility in performance requirements to address practicality challenges.
These key elements and others are discussed in detail below.
FMVSS No. 228 would apply to passenger cars, and to MPVs, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, except for vehicles with short front ends (a very short front hood area). Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would also apply to bidirectional vehicles,
Reflecting the text of GTR 9, the NPRM's proposed regulatory text (S3) excludes MPVs, trucks, and buses where the distance, measured longitudinally on a horizontal plane, between the transverse centerline of the front axle and the seating reference point (SgRP) of the driver's seat, is less than 1,000 mm.
NHTSA drafted the regulatory text with this exclusion, but NHTSA requests comments on whether the subject vehicles should be included in FMVSS No. 228. Notwithstanding the drafters' reasons for excluding the vehicles from GTR 9, NHTSA believes applying proposed FMVSS No. 228 to these vehicles may be appropriate given developments since the GTR. With the advent of new designs in electric vehicles, including designs of automated vehicles on the road today with very short front ends, front end designs appear to be evolving to less
In addition, we base our concerns about this exclusion on present day vehicles and their presence in the U.S. vehicle fleet. The agency took an available selection of vehicles and measured the horizontal distance from the front axle to the seat bight (the area close to and including the intersection of the surfaces of the vehicle seat cushion and the seat back), with the seat adjusted to the full forward and full rearward position. The vehicles and resulting dimensions are provided in table V.1, below. The position of the SgRP for these vehicles was not readily available, but the distance between the axle and the SgRP would likely lie somewhere between the range of distances measured to the seat bight. As stated above, the GTR 9 exclusion would be triggered if the distance from the front axle to the SgRP is less than 1,000 mm.
The agency found that at least one type of full-size cargo van (Ford Transit) could possibly qualify for the exclusion. Looking at both small and full-size cargo and passenger vans, it is clear that many of them share similar design attributes of a short hood and a relatively forward seating position with respect to the front wheels.
NHTSA has tested a vehicle with a short front end similar to vehicles in the excluded category and has successfully conducted headform testing. This testing demonstrated that the proposed WAD-based test procedure can be applied to short front end vehicles. NHTSA also believes it would be practicable for the vehicles to meet the proposed standard. NHTSA tested the 2004 GMC Savana van to a slightly modified version of the GTR 9 test protocol, with a 32 km/h head impact speed. Three of four hood impacts had a HIC below 600. The fourth test, near the edge of the hood had a HIC of less than 1000.
We request comments on the practicability concerns related to these vehicles, specific challenges such vehicles present related to the proposed test procedure, and what adjustments, if any, would be available to apply proposed FMVSS No. 228 to such vehicles. We also request comments on the safety need and outcomes of including all light vehicles under the proposed standard to maximize potential safety benefits to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
It is the agency's intent to apply FMVSS No. 228 to rear engine vehicles, as long as they meet the other applicability requirements. This is because the location of the tested area is not dependent on where the engine is located, but rather is keyed to the front of the vehicle. We believe GTR 9 is intended to apply to such vehicles.
A similar assumption cannot be made about whether GTR 9 is intended to cover bidirectional vehicles. Certainly, there is no explicit mention of these vehicles. Nonetheless, it is NHTSA's intent to apply FMVSS No. 228 to bidirectional vehicles. NHTSA believes that such vehicles may become more common, particularly with the advent of more automated vehicle platforms, and that there is a safety need to apply proposed FMVSS No. 228 to the vehicles because they could strike pedestrians. Therefore, we have explicitly made the definitions and regulatory text of proposed FMVSS No. 228 neutral concerning the direction of vehicle operation,
The NPRM proposes using headform component tests rather than full vehicle dynamic tests in which a vehicle would strike a pedestrian dummy. The agency believes that headform component tests have advantages over full vehicle dynamic tests. The area of the vehicle hood that could contact a pedestrian's head is large. A set of headform component tests enables NHTSA to target hood areas that the agency believes represent danger points, and test with a high degree of accuracy and repeatability. Like all crashes, every real-world pedestrian crash is unique in some way. When the range of statures and other crash variables are taken into account, the area of the vehicle that could contact the head is so large that currently the only feasible test method is one that is based on a sub-system test approach. Proposed FMVSS No. 228 uses such an approach by focusing on the hood and by making use of a set of headform component tests that can target the hood area efficiently. The headform mass, impact angle, and impact speed can all be controlled in a way that will assure that the standard will provide safety in real world impacts and can be enforced. The characteristics of the headforms are discussed in detail later in this preamble.
Pedestrian test dummies have been developed for crashworthiness research. In general, the repeatability of tests using a pedestrian dummy is relatively poor because small variations in initial positioning influence the head-to-hood contact as the dummy passes through its sequence of movements after being struck by the vehicle. Moreover, head impact locations are highly dependent on stature and gait, so use of a single pedestrian dummy for crashworthiness purposes would make it very difficult to assess hood areas that are likely to be struck by persons not represented by the dummy.
Consistent with GTR 9, NHTSA has determined that HIC is an appropriate injury criterion for the proposed standard. The proposed standard would require HIC to be less than 1000 for most hood impacts. HIC is calculated using the expression below, where the resultant acceleration, a
HIC, which is a function of the tri-axial linear acceleration in the headform, is well established and used in numerous occupant protection FMVSS. A HIC value of 1000 represents an 11 percent risk of a brain injury of severity level AIS 4 or greater and a HIC value of 1700 represents a 36 percent risk.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would require vehicles to meet HIC limits when subjected to hood headform impactor testing. It defines the forward, rear and side areas of the hood, thus defining a primary area—the “Hood Top.”
Further, GTR 9 uses a 15 ms window instead of 36 ms to improve the objectivity of the test. The 15 ms window was viewed as a common-sense safeguard against signal corruption due to a secondary impact. With hood impacts, there is a risk that the headform may undergo a secondary impact in rapid succession (in less than 36 ms), as the head could strike the hood target then bounce away and land on a structure such as the windshield, which is outside of the test area. To safeguard against the effects of a secondary impact, the 15 ms criterion was implemented as a convenient means to help assure that the HIC value reflects only that portion of the headform acceleration caused by a hood impact within the test area. The procedures developed by IHRA, ISO, and the EEVC all use a 15 ms window to calculate HIC. This criterion and threshold have been carried over to all subsequent international standards.
• We generally agree with the approach and have proposed it in this NPRM. However, we would like to know more about the following issues. We have not seen a need to use a 15 ms window, as opposed to a 36 ms window, because head impacts to external car structures are very short, occurring within a few milliseconds of contact. In practice, 15 ms and 36 ms windows generally have produced the same value in pedestrian protection tests. Further, in our own testing, we have not observed an instance where the use of a 36 ms window would have led to signal corruption due to a secondary impact. We request comment on the need for a 15 ms timeframe related to testing issues.
• We also seek comment on whether a 15 versus 36 ms window could affect HIC measurements when testing active hoods or cowl air bags,
The headforms would impact the vehicle hood at specific speeds and impact angles replicating a real-world 40 km/h (25 mph) impact.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would require the launch direction to be entirely within the plane parallel to the vehicle x-z plane (vertical longitudinal plane) and the impact speed for both headforms would be 35 km/h (22 mph).
The proposed test speed encompasses the majority of pedestrian collisions. About 70 percent of injurious pedestrian collisions occur at vehicle speeds of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less (see figure V.2, which averages data from 2011 to 2020).
The proposed test speed addresses a safety need within the bounds of practicability. Although pedestrian fatalities, on average (50% cumulative value in figure V.2), occur at a collision speed of 70 km/h (44 mph), the practicability of designing a hood to conform to HIC1000, based on energy dissipation, appears to become less feasible at a headform impact speed of 61 km/h (38 mph) (assuming the same ratio of head speed to vehicle speed used from the proposal, the 61 km/h would have about 3 times the energy). Moreover, the proposed rule would reduce the severity of many head injuries that occur at speeds covered by the test.
Notwithstanding the proposed headform test speed of 35 km/h (22 mph), NHTSA believes there would be benefits from the proposed standard for some crashes above a 40 km/h (25 mph) vehicle speed, as the countermeasures used to meet the proposed HIC thresholds could mitigate some of the harm resulting from head-to-hood strikes that can occur in the higher speed crashes. Also, vehicle designs that provide head protection in a 35 km/h (22 mph) headform impact may also have the effect of reducing the severity of injuries to body regions other than the head in collisions at vehicle speeds above 40 km/h (25 mph). For example, at vehicle to pedestrian collision speeds of 50 km/h (31 mph) and higher, bi-lateral rib fractures have been observed in thorax-to-hood contacts.
NHTSA anticipates PAEB would mitigate 238 fatalities and 2,672 injuries of the current target population for this NPRM and has based our benefits estimate for this NPRM on that assumption. Automatic emergency braking helps prevent crashes or reduce their severity by applying a vehicle's brakes automatically. The systems use on-board sensors to detect an imminent crash, warn the driver, and apply the brakes if the driver does not take action quickly enough or increase the braking application in the case that the driver does not sufficiently brake to avoid contact. When new vehicles are equipped with PAEB that meets the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 127, fewer pedestrians will be struck, which would have the effect of reducing the target population for this rulemaking. On the other hand, for many impacts that occur at speeds too high for PAEB to completely mitigate, PAEB will lower the vehicle's speed so that impact speeds that would have been greater than 40 km/h (25 mph) could be reduced to close to or below 40 km/h (25 mph). This would theoretically add to the target population of this rulemaking because these are pedestrian crashes that this proposed pedestrian head protection standard could potentially address. And, as proposed FMVSS No. 228 would ensure the striking vehicles have protective features that protect against serious to fatal head injury in these impacts, those pedestrians that would be newly included in the target population of this NPRM due to PAEB could arguably be included among those saved from serious to fatal injury by this head protection rulemaking. However, we have not accounted for the extent to which the FMVSS No. 127 would add to the target population or to the population of persons benefiting from this head protection NPRM because of unknowns about how those benefits could be quantified. As a result, our analysis likely underestimates benefits. With this in mind, in the PRIA we estimate that PAEB would decrease the fatality target population addressed by FMVSS No. 228 by about 4 percent. Comments are requested on this issue.
• NHTSA requests comments on increasing the test velocity above 35 km/h (22 mph) to capture a greater percentage of pedestrian impacts presented in the field data and achieve additional safety benefits.
Consistent with the GTR, NHTSA proposes that, at impact, the velocity vector of the child headform would form a 50-degree angle down from the horizontal (50° ± 2° at the time of impact). For the adult headform, the
The head impact angles were developed based on observations of PMHS and pedestrian dummy tests, computer modeling, and reconstructions of real-world pedestrian collisions. The impact angle in a real-world impact is greater for taller pedestrians than for shorter pedestrians, and this is reflected in the test procedure. The impact angle in real-world impacts also varies depending on the shape of the vehicle front-end, particularly the height of the leading edge of the hood. Passenger cars (with low leading edges) generally produce head-hood angles that are closer to 90 degrees than SUVs.
The proposed 65-degree impact angle for the adult headform test is the same as the IHRA specification. The bulk of research data showed head impact angles in the range of 50 to 80 degrees; IHRA selected a nominal headform
The selection of a 50-degree impact angle for the child headform test was partly based on computational simulations using a 5th percentile adult female (which is about the same size as an average 12-year-old child)
• We believe that the headform impact test would be the most stringent when the impact is normal to the hood surface (a 90-degree angle of incidence to the surface).
As relevant areas are defined in the following section of this NPRM, any necessary clarification to GTR 9 will be identified and described. Although the various hood reference lines should be essentially identical to those in GTR 9, the terminology used to describe the areas and reference lines are not identical. A more complete comparison of the terminology used in GTR versus this NPRM can be found in section VIII.
The areas subject to the standard are the areas likely to be impacted by the head of a pedestrian and for which countermeasures are or could reasonably be available. The most severe head injuries can be due to contact anywhere on the hood surface.
Portions of the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas are either subject to HIC1000 or HIC1700 limits. The requisite HIC1000 area that is calculated based on the total Hood Area must be located within the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas and are not part of the HIC Unlimited Area. Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would provide manufacturers considerable leeway in determining where to place the HIC1700 area to afford them as much flexibility as reasonably possible in configuring the structures comprising their under-hood designs. The vehicle manufacturer would inform NHTSA of the locations of the HIC1700 areas. NHTSA would use that information to confirm that sufficient HIC1000 area has been provided, delineate the HIC1700 areas, and confirm through headform test results that the appropriate HIC limits are met.
The Hood Top is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders (these borders are depicted in figure VI.1 below):
•
•
•
The front border of the Hood Top would consist of the vehicle's “Leading Edge Reference Line” (LERL). The LERL is determined for most vehicles by running a 1,000 mm straight edge angled at 40° (down from the horizontal) along the front edge of the vehicle. The lower end of the straight edge is specified to be 600 mm off the ground. The specified height of 600 mm was chosen to avoid the bumper when marking off the hood leading edge. (See figure VI.2 below, illustrating the procedure.) The length and angle of the straight edge result in the upper end being placed at 1,243 mm from ground level. The use of a 40° angle provides an objective means to delineate the grille/bumper from the hood. Moving along the width of the front-end and while holding the straight edge parallel to the vehicle x-z plane, the contact points between the straight edge and the vehicle define the line. The reference to a 1,000 mm long straight edge is in the GTR. Our understanding is the 1,000 mm length of the straight edge was chosen for convenience, and may be a result of previous pedestrian test protocols.
The side borders of the Hood Top would be determined by identifying the Side Reference Lines (SRLs). An SRL would be drawn by running a straight edge angled at 45° along the side of the vehicle. Unlike in the procedure establishing the LERL, the straight edge is not held a fixed distance from the ground when determining the SRL. The 45° angle provides an objective means to delineate the fender from the hood. Moving along the length of the vehicle, the contact points between the straight edge and the vehicle define the SRL. The side border has been defined this way in all previous test protocols preceding the GTR, including those of the EEVC, IHRA, ISO, and NHTSA's earlier work on a pedestrian protection standard. It is also used in Euro NCAP. (See figure VI.3, provided for illustration purposes.)
The rear border of the Hood Top would be determined by identifying the Rear Reference Line (RRL). The RRL would be determined by inserting a 165 mm sphere into the cowl
The GTR is at times ambiguous regarding where to pinpoint the intersection of the Leading Edge Reference Line (LERL) and the Side Reference Line (SRL) defining the Hood Top. The front border of the Hood Top is defined by the LERL. On vehicles that were on the road fifteen or more years ago, the hood front border did not have a high degree of curvature, and the point of intersection with the side border was easy to discern. However, on newer models, the LERL is usually curved and often not smooth—such that it may be possible for the side border to intersect in more than one place (although we expect such occurrences to be rare). This is depicted in the figure below (figure VI.5).
To identify the boundaries for the Hood Top, it is important for NHTSA to know where the LERL intersects the SRL. In European test protocols used today (
As we discuss below, there are other areas defined on the vehicle hood that may also have multiple intersections at the front corners. To be clear in the proposed standard as to how the areas are determined, we are also similarly defining the “Corner Reference Point of the Child Headform Test Area” and the “Corner Reference Point of the Hood Area.”
Finally, as mentioned previously, there is a proposed provision for determining the LERL of a high front vehicle when the tip of the straight edge makes first contact with the vehicle as opposed to elsewhere on the straight edge (see figure VI.16 later in the document). In such an instance, consistent with GTR 9, the WAD1000 line becomes the LERL. However, when this procedure is followed, it is likely that the WAD1000 line and SRL would not intersect due to their height difference, and thus, using procedures that would apply to vehicles of lower front ends, the Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top cannot be determined. To correct this deficiency, proposed FMVSS No. 228 would provide a procedure to connect the SRL to the WAD1000 line and thus establish the Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top. This procedure involves establishing the Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top as if the LERL were determined by contact with the straight edge. The SRL and the WAD1000 line are then connected by a line spanning the distance from the Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top and the WAD1000 line.
When the sphere and cowl procedure is conducted, often the RRL does not intersect the SRL,
The template would be placed on the vehicle with corners “A” and “B” coincident with the side reference line. With these two corners remaining coincident with the side reference line, the template would be slid gradually rearwards until the outer edge of the template makes first contact with the RRL. If the first point of contact between the template and RRL lies outside the arc identified by points “C” and “D,” the RRL is extended and/or modified to follow the circumferential arc of the template to meet the SRL, as shown in figure VI.7 (provided for illustration purposes).
If the outer edge of the template shown in figure VI.6 cannot contact the rear reference line while simultaneously contacting the side reference line at points “A” and “B,” or the point at which the rear reference line and template make first contact lies within the arc identified by points “C” and “D,” then the standard prescribes that larger templates must be used where the radii are increased progressively in increments of 20 mm, until all the criteria above are met.
Through years of researching pedestrian head protection using the procedures described in the GTR, NHTSA has seen instances where the GTR is silent or ambiguous about its application to some aspects of hood design. NHTSA has developed ways to address these challenges consistent with the GTR and NHTSA's Safety Act requirements such that the FMVSS set forth objective and repeatable criteria. We propose to incorporate these lessons learned into FMVSS No. 228's test procedures and criteria, some of which are highlighted below.
In marking off the SRL using the straight edge, a contour on the hood or fender could create a continuous line with sudden changes in direction, or zigzagging in what was previously a relatively smooth line. NHTSA considers this marked-off side border a valid SRL and would not smooth out the line in a compliance test as may be customary in the European approval process.
Yet, some vehicle contours may result in a discontinuous line (a line with a break in it). In other words, a “jump” could occur such that the border is no longer continuous because the points contacted by the straight edge alternated between portions of the vehicle surface separated by some distance. See figure VI.8 below, which depicts a hypothetical vehicle with a discontinuous SRL (discontinuity is not to scale). As shown in the figure, in this situation, NHTSA would “fill in” the gap and make the broken line whole again using a procedure that involves holding a non-stretch wire taut across the gap in the line. The break is filled by scribing a line created by the projection of the wire vertically downward on the vehicle surface. This procedure also results in a zigzagging final line, which is an acceptable outcome.
NHTSA has also encountered situations using the straight edge where the vehicle may be contoured such that the straight edge contacts two points at once (see figure VI.9). Such a situation could occur when scribing any of the hood borders. To address this, where multiple or continuous contacts occur NHTSA would use the contact that provides the largest Hood Top (
As explained earlier, NHTSA uses a straight edge to define the LERL of the hood. Similar to the side border, this front border of the hood may have multiple points of contact when using the straight edge held at 40° from the horizontal. If continuous or multiple points of contact result, this NPRM (consistent with the GTR) specifies adjusting the angle of the straight edge from 40° to 50° from the horizontal to try to achieve a single point of contact.
As is the case with the Side Reference Lines, a zigzagging final front border is an acceptable result. If there are gaps in the line, NHTSA would fill in the gaps using a non-stretch wire held taut across the gap in the line. The break is filled by scribing a line created by the projection of the wire vertically downward on the vehicle surface. Any protruding hood ornaments would be removed when drawing the LERL if they have the effect of pushing the border rearward (and reducing the test area).
One additional special provision of the LERL relates to vehicles where the only contact of the straight edge is at its upper tip. Consistent with the GTR, as the straight edge is moved laterally across the front of the vehicle, if the upper tip is the only contact point, the WAD1000 line is the LERL at this location. Additional discussion on this topic is presented later in this document.
After identifying the Hood Top, the next step is to establish the “Hood Area.”
•
•
•
Consistent with GTR 9, this NPRM proposes to use the most rearward of either the WAD1000 line or the LERL in determining the front border of what proposed FMVSS No. 228 would call the Hood Area. In the example shown in figure VI.11 the Hood Area (light grey) does not completely cover the Hood Top because the WAD1000 line is rearward of the LERL. The cross hatched area shows the difference between the Hood Top and Hood Area. WAD1000 is just under the average height of a 6-year-old child (a target demographic of the standard), which is 1,150 mm. The drafters of the GTR explained that a WAD of 1,000 mm was selected as the forward boundary because real-world crash data show that over 80 percent of child pedestrian head contacts are above a WAD of 1,000 mm.
The side borders for the Hood Area are the SRLs, which are also the side borders for the Hood Top. The length of side borders may differ from the Hood Top on some vehicles since the Hood Area may have different rear and front borders than those of the Hood Top.
Similar to the process for the front border, the first step in establishing the rear border of the Hood Area is to locate the WAD2100 line (WAD2100). This NPRM's regulatory text proposes to use the most forward of either WAD2100 or the Rear Reference Line (RRL)
This NPRM's regulatory text describes using the most forward of either
As was the case with the Hood Top, we believe it is also necessary to define a Corner Reference Point for the Hood Area to avoid any ambiguity in pinpointing the intersection of the front and side borders of the Hood Area. Obviously, when the Hood Top and Hood Area share the same front border (LERL), the corner point is the same. However, when the front border of the Hood Area is the WAD1000 line, the corner points will be different, with the Corner Reference Point of the Hood Area being at the intersection of the WAD1000 line and the side border, and the Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top being at the intersection of the LERL and the side border.
The Child and Adult Headform Test Areas are smaller than the Hood Area to account for specified regions that are not subject to HIC limits under the GTR, which we call “HIC Unlimited Area.”
The Child Headform Test Area (See figure VI.13) is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders:
•
•
•
The Adult Headform Test Area (See figure VI.13) is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders:
•
•
•
The first step in determining the HIC Unlimited Margin would be to establish a reference line by measuring an 82.5 mm (3.25 inches) distance from each point along the four borders of the Hood Top. For convenience, in this preamble we refer to this as “the 82.5 mm offset line.” (See figure VI.14.) For example, the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference Line is established by following the SRL along the contour of the body in the y-z plane using the equivalent of a taut, 82.5 mm (3.25 inch) graduated wire. The regulatory text describes using the wire to measure the 82.5 mm (3.25 inches) distance over any surface bumps that may be present, such as ornamental trim. Since the wire is taut, it would span any depressions (such as a seam between the hood and fender) between the points on the SRL to the measured points. The wire must not deviate from the y-z plane when establishing the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference Line. Similarly, an 82.5 mm offset line for the LERL and RRL would be drawn by measuring the prescribed distance from each point along the LERL and RRL along the contour of the body in the x-z plane using a taut, graduated wire.
The front border of the Child Headform Test Area is the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line, which is the WAD1000 line or the 82.5mm offset line, whichever is most rearward.
The agency believes there are several provisions where it would be worthwhile for FMVSS No. 228 to differ from GTR 9 with respect to the front border of the testable area, particularly for vehicles that are larger or smaller than typical size. NHTSA requests comment on these approaches for possible inclusion in the final rule.
First, with respect to large vehicles, this NPRM's regulatory text for FMVSS No. 228 reflects the provisions of GTR 9 regarding the procedures for testing vehicles with higher front ends, like larger light trucks, but the agency discusses in this section aspects that NHTSA believes may be more appropriate for the U.S. fleet. To begin, the GTR procedure is as follows: When establishing the front border of the relevant Hood Top, Hood Area, and ultimately the Child Headform Test Area, the first step is to use the 1,000 mm straight edge to determine the LERL. As shown in figure VI.16, for passenger car designs, the straight edge is held high enough to engage the vehicle's front end. However, the upper leading edge of the hood for some full-sized pickup trucks exceeds 1,243 mm, which is the highest point of the straight edge from the ground. For these vehicles, the upper tip of the straight edge would be the only point of contact with the vehicle. If this occurs, consistent with S3.5 in GTR 9, by definition, the WAD1000 line becomes the LERL. (This provision may also come into play for flat front EVs.) Thus, the front border of the Child Headform Test Area would be established by the 82.5 mm offset line from the WAD1000 line. In some vehicles this may be in the front grille area.
Large pickups and large SUV comprise about 18 percent of new vehicle sales, and some vehicles are large enough that they will engage the tip of the straight edge in this way, such as the MY 2022 Ford F250.
First, it would clearly be possible as a practical matter to extend the straight edge to whatever length necessary to contact the vehicle at the more typical front hood location. However, this may result in loss of a significant amount of testable area in the grille and associated safety benefits. Child and small adult pedestrian heads are more apt to strike the grille than the hood top on these vehicles, so extending the straight edge would reduce the real-world relevance of the test as regards those pedestrian impacts. Therefore, the agency is not inclined to make such an accommodation without a demonstration that subjecting the grille to testing is infeasible, meeting the standard is impracticable, or other such reason. In a section below, we request comment on the practicability of meeting proposed FMVSS No. 228 in the grille area.
The provision establishing the WAD1000 line as the LERL if the tip contacts the vehicle sets up a provision in the standard that would test vehicles with just slight hood height differences differently. In vehicles such as that shown in the bottom part of figure VI.16, the LERL would be WAD1000 because the tip of the straight edge contacts the vehicle—and, as a result, because WAD1000 is in the grille, the grille would be tested. However, for a vehicle with a slightly lower hood height that just allows the straight edge to make contact with the hood along the straight edge length and not at its tip, the LERL would not drop to the WAD1000 line in the grille area—and so the grille area would not be tested. NHTSA believes a more consistent and reasonable approach could be one that determines the test area using data tied to where head impacts are likely to occur, as opposed to an approach that determines test area by the length of a straight edge. Thus, NHTSA requests comments on an approach that establishes the WAD1000 line as the front border of the test area for all vehicle testing. NHTSA believes this approach is merited as it determines the test area based on where head impacts would occur in the real world, rather than where a straight edge makes contact. The agency poses specific questions at the end of this section and requests comments on using this approach in the final rule.
We request comment on the specifics of testing a grille area. As described in the test procedure of the GTR, the child headform is launched at 50 degrees down from the horizontal and would impact a horizontal surface at 40 degrees from a purely perpendicular impact. (The child headform impact angle is illustrated in figure V.3 of this preamble.) Assuming, for simplicity, a vertical front face of a vehicle, this
For these high front and flat front vehicles, the apportioning of the amount of the test areas that must have a HIC1000 or less merits discussion. As previously mentioned and discussed in more detail in section VII of this preamble, the portion of the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Areas that must meet the HIC1000 provision must be at least the numerical value of two-thirds of the Hood Area placed inside of the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas. Because this two-thirds calculation is made on the basis of a two-dimensional projection on to a horizontal plane, if some of the Child Headform Test Area could be on a front surface of a vehicle that is more vertical than horizontal, this area would not be added to the Hood Area calculation simply due to the method of calculation using the two-dimensional projection onto a horizontal plane. The concern here is that this vertical test area, even if considered part of the headform test area, would not be considered in calculating the amount of required HIC1000 area. Stated another way, the vertical test area, or an equivalent amount, would not have to meet HIC1000; it could be assigned only HIC1700, which would result in the vehicle providing a lowered level of head protection. (Comments are requested on this issue in the next section.)
This point relates to large vehicles in general where the upper portion of the straight edge, but not the tip, makes contact with the vehicle. For these vehicles, WAD1000 could be in the grille area,
Regarding smaller vehicles, the NPRM's regulatory text reflecting the GTR specifies that the forward border of the required test area would be the 82.5 mm offset line or WAD1000, whichever is most rearward. Under this proposed provision, requirements for head protection would start at WAD1000 for most small vehicles as the WAD1000 line is usually more rearward than the 82.5 mm offset line. However, for many smaller vehicles WAD1000 is far up the hood, which means much of the hood (the forward portion) would not be subject to any headform testing. It does not appear there are practicability barriers to headform testing of the hood on small vehicles, because comparable areas of the hood on larger vehicles would be regulated under the proposed standard and thus subject to headform testing. Testing forward of WAD1000 would potentially add to the protection of children with a standing height of less than 1,000 mm. As discussed below, to increase the safety benefits of the rule, we are considering an alternative provision that would test forward of WAD1000. NHTSA requests comment on this issue.
Based on the above discussion, NHTSA requests comments on the questions below to help the agency decide whether a final rule should identify the forward border differently. Please comment on the potential gain in safety benefits as well as any potential practicability, cost, or technical issues.
• The NPRM's regulatory text reflects the GTR 9 provision that accounts for the situation where the tip of the 1,000 mm straight edge defines the LERL (rather than a point further down along the straight edge), such as when the tip of the straight edge could make first contact with the grille of a subject vehicle. In this situation, the WAD1000 line becomes the LERL. This means that the testable area could potentially include the grille area of the vehicle (
• There may be large vehicles with a hood height slightly lower than those where the straight edge tip contacts the vehicle first, such that the provision to drop the LERL to WAD1000 is not triggered. Additionally, the NPRM's regulatory text (reflecting the GTR) specifies that, for large vehicles in general, the Child Headform Test Area begins well rearward of WAD1000—
• For many smaller vehicles the forward line where testing is required is at WAD1000, far behind the LERL, which means much of the hood (the forward portion) would not be subject to headform testing. We note that subjecting these forward areas of the hood to the standard may benefit children smaller than the average 6-year-old. A potential way to subject the forward areas to testing could be the same as that suggested above for larger vehicles,
• As discussed above, another alternative on which we request comment involves how the GTR determines the HIC Unlimited Margin for the front and sides. (Impacts in the HIC Unlimited Margin are not subject to any HIC limit.) The NPRM's regulatory text reflects the GTR's specification that the margin would be determined using an 82.5 (3.25 inch) mm taut wire, but NHTSA finds merit in using a 50 mm (1.97 inch) taut wire instead to increase the testable area, and reduce the allowable area of the HIC Unlimited Margin.
Consistent with the GTR, proposed FMVSS No. 228 would separate the Child Headform Test Area from the Adult Headform Test Area at WAD1700. For many smaller vehicles, it is possible that there would be no Adult Headform Test Area at all when the transition between the child and adult test areas is drawn at WAD1700. Consistent with the GTR, proposed FMVSS No. 228 would require that, if there is only a Child Headform Test Area, the requirements that applied to the combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area are applied to the Child Headform Test Area alone. For example, at least two-thirds of the numerical value of the Hood Area, when placed within the boundary of the Child Headform Test Area (as opposed to the combined areas) must not exceed HIC of 1000 using the child headform. For the remaining area the HIC shall not exceed 1700.
This NPRM uses WAD1700 to transition between the Adult and Child Headform Test Areas because GTR data indicate that 6- to 15-year-old child head impacts start at about WAD1000 and end at WAD1700. A 5th percentile female has a standing height of an average 12-year-old child and would likely have a head impact within the Child Headform Test Area. Consistent with this, figure VI.17 below from the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS) shows that for all adults, impacts start at about WAD1400 and end at WAD2400. PCDS shows that about 70% of all adult pedestrian head impacts are between WAD1000 and WAD2100. Separating the genders, about half of adult female and one third of adult male head impacts are between WAD1000 and W1700 (not depicted in figure VI.17). As shown in figure VI.17, the WAD1700 represents the 75th percentile for children under age 10 and the 25th percentile for all adults. Because stature distribution has remained stable over the past two decades
Data show that child-adult overlapping of impacts occurs between 1400 and 1700 mm. The drafters of the GTR considered whether to use a test method where the child and adult test areas overlap or whether a step change should be used, and where it should be drawn. The goal was to ensure that the transition area would provide protection against both child and adult head impacts. The drafters considered an approach to specify a test area (transition zone) in which both a child headform and an adult headform would be used to assess compliance, because both children and adults strike this area. Such a transition zone could, for example, be WAD 1400—WAD1700 or WAD1500—WAD1700. They also considered, and ultimately adopted, a sudden transition (step change) approach. However, the NCAP RFC and Euro NCAP test procedures have adopted a transition zone between WAD1500—WAD1700, where both impactors must be used if the RRL is between WAD1500 and WAD1700.
The rationale supporting a step change approach is that a sudden step change in hood performance is not
• NHTSA tentatively agrees with the above reasons and has drafted the regulatory text of proposed FMVSS No. 228 to specify a non-overlapping transition from the Child Headform Test Area to the Adult Headform Test Area at WAD1700. However, we request comments on the merits of a transition zone. We would like to know more about the degree to which a step change approach addresses safety for both adults and children for vehicles that have sharp changes in structure, such as the joint between the rear of the hood and the cowl, which may occur along the transition line. This is indeed the case for many smaller vehicles which have no Adult Headform Test Area at all when the transition is drawn at WAD1700. While this helps with design feasibility for such vehicles (requirements apply for the lighter headform only), it may reduce the safety of such vehicles for shorter adult pedestrians because the hood may not provide sufficient penetration depth for the heavier adult headform. We therefore seek comment on other options for FMVSS No. 228. These options may include a revised procedure in which the adult/child border is drawn at a different WAD and use of a transition area that is tested with both headforms.
Consistent with GTR 9, the rear border of the Adult Headform Test Area is the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line, which is the WAD2100 line or the 82.5mm offset line, whichever is more forward. WAD2100 is based on the average height of a 50th percentile adult male, which is about 1750 mm. This height is about the 97th percentile for adult females in the U.S.
NHTSA is considering several changes to the GTR approach related to the rear border of the Adult Headform Test Area to increase the test area. These considerations offer the potential of providing increasing pedestrian protection to individuals taller than the average male, and to individuals involved in higher speed impacts.
1. First, we are considering including headform testing of the windshield. This NPRM's regulatory text does not include testing of the windshield, A-pillars or top edge of the windshield, which is reflective of GTR 9's text. The GTR excludes the A-pillars and top edge of the windshield from the test area because of practicability reasons, and NHTSA generally agrees with excluding those areas. It is difficult to reduce the stiffness of the windshield frame because it serves as a support structure and helps to ensure the integrity of the occupant compartment. Furthermore, in the lower windshield area the requisite deformation space to meet HIC is restricted by the dashboard and instrument panel. Some components must be positioned in the dashboard and instrument panel to provide occupant protection (
The GTR drafters excluded the windshield for different reasons, finding that the windshield itself does not cause severe injuries and therefore the number of casualties averted would be very low. The center of the windshield—away from the edges—generally produces good safety scores, although impacts near the A-pillars universally produce poor results. This is consistent with real-world data which show that fatal injuries are more common when the head strikes the windshield frame rather than the center area.
Nonetheless, NHTSA is concerned that head-to-windshield impacts are associated with a high incidence of pedestrian injuries. One reason is that a head-to-windshield impact may have a higher velocity than a head-to-hood impact.
NHTSA has also observed that vehicle designs have changed in recent years in that windshields are more forward on the hood, where the cowl may begin at WAD1700. WAD1700 separates the Child Headform Test Area from the Adult Headform Test Area. Because the area rearward of the cowl is excluded from the headform test area, these vehicles have hoods that would only have a Child Headform Test Area and would be tested only with a child headform. NHTSA is concerned that these designs may be particularly detrimental to shorter adult pedestrians who are more apt to strike the hood near the cowl than in the case of designs of predecessor vehicles whose cowls began at a higher WAD measurement. Extending the test area into the windshield may serve to disincentivize such designs by eliminating the compliance advantage that may come with limiting the hood size to WAD1700. Further, the windshield itself on these vehicles tends to be more horizontal than vertical, and so a larger portion of the windshield lies directly above and near the dashboard panel where there is less penetration depth to protect the head. The extended windshield (
NHTSA has also observed the development of automated rideshare vehicles and other modern EVs with very flat fronts, with the base of the windshield or windshield-like areas at very small WAD locations compared to traditional vehicles. For such vehicles, exclusion of the windshield-like areas would essentially permit the vehicle to not provide any form of pedestrian head protection.
Finally, as we noted above, some of these automated vehicles appear to have
As for practicability, NHTSA has performed eleven tests into the windshield as part of the testing documented in table VII.1, below. Of those eleven tests, nine had HIC below 1000 and the other two tests were HIC below 1700, which support a finding that testing of at least some portion of the windshield may be reasonable and practicable.
It is the agency's understanding that UNECE Reg. No. 127 has a proposal to specifically add the windshield as a new test area.
• Given the above, there appears to be merit to including the windshield in a test area for FMVSS No. 228. The regulatory text of this NPRM does not include the windshield, but NHTSA is considering language for a final rule that would include the windshield. The NCAP RFC and various international NCAP programs that assess pedestrian safety (Euro NCAP, Japan NCAP, Korea NCAP, and Australian NCAP) include a head-to-windshield impact test area. In addition, a UNECE Reg. No. 127 proposal also includes the windshield for testing.
2. The next subject for consideration is the limitation of testing beyond WAD2100. Consistent with GTR 9, this NPRM's regulatory text states that the rear border of the Adult Headform Test Area is either WAD2100 or the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line, whichever is more forward. However, the ECE proposal mentioned above changes WAD2100 to WAD2500. That is, the rear border of the Adult Headform Test Area (“Adult Bonnet Top Headform Test Area” in the ECE proposal) would be changed from the forwardmost of WAD2100 or the 82.5 mm offset line, to the forwardmost of WAD2500 or the 82.5 mm offset line. The change to WAD2500 would increase the test area. We are also aware of similar changes to the Euro NCAP requirements being implemented in 2023, with the area between WAD2100 and WAD2500 being referred to as the Cyclist Zone.
The specification of WAD2100 recognizes that the point of head contact—relative to the height of the pedestrian—moves further rearward as pedestrian stature increases. WAD2100 corresponds to the typical head impact location of a pedestrian with a height of 1,750 mm for a vehicle speed of 40 km/h. A height of 1,750 mm is approximately the height of a 50th percentile male. For most passenger cars and minivans, WAD2100 lies rearward of the Rear Reference Line (RRL) (which is at the cowl) so WAD2100 would not be consequential as it would not be used to define the rear border of the hood area. However, for some larger vehicles in the U.S., the WAD2100 line can be forward of the RRL, which means that WAD2100 would be the rear border of the testable area of the hood even though there could be parts of the hood rearward of that WAD2100 line.
• We seek comment on moving the rear boundary of the test area consistent with using WAD2500 as the reference, rather than WAD2100. Such a change has been proposed for UNECE Reg. No. 127 and Euro NCAP. We also seek comment on the need for a modified impact angle for the roof, if moving to a WAD2100 boundary results in headform testing in the A-pillar or roof areas.
3. Another issue that arises in defining the Adult Headform Test Area rear boundary is that the GTR uses the
• Regardless of any change to the WAD reference, we request comment on using the most
4. We are also considering reducing the HIC Unlimited Area by using a 50 mm (1.97 inch) offset line rather than an 82.5 mm (3.25 inch) offset line at the rear of the Hood Top. This HIC Unlimited Margin at the rear of the Hood Top was originally written into the GTR to prevent a test anomaly where the headform could hit the windshield and the hood simultaneously. However, NHTSA believes that the use of the 165 mm sphere to define the RRL works adequately to prevent situations where the headform could contact the windshield and hood simultaneously. We also note that the NCAP RFC and Euro NCAP do not consider impact points on the hood that are a distance less than 50 mm from the Side Reference Line (SRL) measured in the lateral direction;
• Accordingly, while the regulatory text of this NPRM uses an 82.5 mm Offset Line, NHTSA is considering using a 50 mm Offset Line rather that an 82.5 mm Offset Line to define the rear HIC Unlimited Margin. The reduced Offset Line would make more of the hood on larger vehicles subject to headform testing. NHTSA requests comments on the merits of the agency's adopting a 50 mm Offset Line in the final rule.
5. Finally, we are considering and request comments on the merits of including the entire Hood Top as the testable area. This would mean the elimination of the HIC Unlimited Area completely, of both the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas, and expansion of the front test border to the LERL and the rear border to the RRL. We discuss this
Finally, we believe it is also necessary to define a corner reference point for the test areas (specifically the Child Headform Test Area), just as it is for the Hood Area. The rationale is the same as for the Hood Area,
Consistent with GTR 9, the regulatory text of this NPRM prescribes the amount of the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas that must conform to a HIC1000 limit (HIC1000 Area). The remainder of the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas must be able to conform to a HIC1700 limit (HIC1700 Area).
The basis for the minimum HIC1000 Area is the size of the Hood Area. After the Hood Area is determined, the performance requirements would be applied as follows:
(1) The numerical value of two thirds of the Hood Area is calculated. At least this amount of area, when placed within the boundary of the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area, must not exceed HIC1000.
(2) The numerical value of one-half of the Hood Area under WAD1700 is calculated. At least this amount of area, when placed within the boundary of the Child Headform Test Area, must not exceed HIC1000.
(3) For all other tests, HIC must not exceed HIC1700.
In sum, under the provisions described above:
• One-half of the numerical value of the Hood Area that lies below WAD1700, when placed in the Child Headform Test Area, must meet HIC1000.
• At least two-thirds of the numerical value of the entire Hood Area, when placed within the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area, must meet the HIC1000 requirement.
• In the event the numerical value of two-thirds of the Hood Area exceeds the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area, the entire Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area must meet HIC1000. There would be no HIC1700 area.
• There may be cases where there is no Adult Headform Test Area; in such cases, by definition, the Child Headform Test Area represents the entire test area. In that case, the one-half requirement in the Child Headform Test Area does not apply. Instead, the HIC recorded shall not exceed 1000 over two-thirds of the Hood Area when placed within the Child Headform Test Area, since it represents the entirety of the test area. For the remaining Child Headform Test Area, the HIC shall not exceed 1700. All tests in the Child Headform Test Area would be with the child headform.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would provide manufacturers considerable flexibility in designing their hoods to provide the protective HIC1000 area. They have the flexibility to account for hard points under the hood that prevent the hood from meeting HIC1000. As explained below, upon request, under NHTSA's enforcement authority, they must report their design choices to NHTSA, so that the agency will know the locations of the HIC1700 areas and can assess the compliance of the vehicle based on that information.
Upon request and under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166, manufacturers would be required to identify to NHTSA the HIC1700 portions of the test areas.
FMVSS No. 228 would place some conditions on manufacturers' designations of HIC1700 areas. When the HIC1700 area is contiguous with reference lines, HIC Unlimited margins or WAD lines set forth in FMVSS No. 228, the lines determined according to the standard would supersede any conflicting coordinates provided by the manufacturer. In other words, the borders as set forth in the standard are definitive and NHTSA will use the procedures to determine the relevant areas on the hood without manufacturer input.
To enable more efficient compliance testing, this NPRM specifies ways in which the HIC1700 areas would be disclosed to NHTSA. This NPRM proposes to require manufacturers to identify HIC1700 areas by providing the (x,y) coordinates of their borders referenced from the intersection of WAD1000 and the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.
• Under the GTR, when the Adult Headform Test Area is relatively small compared to the Hood Area, it is possible in some instances for a manufacturer to define
Under the proposed FMVSS No. 228 test procedures, with the agency knowing the manufacturer's information identifying the HIC1700 areas, NHTSA would launch a headform at the hood. The standard would take a simple approach to determine the HIC requirement that applies to a particular impact. For any given headform launch, NHTSA would identify the first point of contact between the headform and the hood. NHTSA's proposed method of targeting areas on the hood and assigning HIC values through the first point of contact is consistent with NHTSA's interpretation of GTR 9, and we refer to it as the “3D Method.” If the impact is in a HIC1000 area, the headform must measure a HIC equal to or less than 1000 for the vehicle to pass the test. If the impact is in a HIC1700 area, the headform must measure a HIC equal to or less than 1700. We will test as many points on the hood as we deem necessary to assure the vehicle complies with the standard.
We recognize the possibility that the first contact of the headform could occur at multiple points on the hood simultaneously due to the curvature of the hood and the headform, and that these points could lie in different test areas. For example, one point could lie in the HIC1000 portion of the Child Headform Test Area and another could lie in the HIC1700 of the Adult Headform Test Area. To address this problem, we propose to use a simple and common-sense approach to cover instances where the first contact occurs in more than one area: when such a situation arises, the more stringent requirement applies.
Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would not specify how many tests NHTSA would conduct on a particular hood or where precisely the headforms would be aimed (such as minimum spacing between the test points on the hood). NHTSA agrees with the drafters of the GTR that the specification of such points is not necessary because, for Contracting Parties such as the United States that use a self-certification regulatory framework, specifying the number of tests required for testing or the spacing of test points is unnecessary. Under NHTSA's statutory framework and proposed FMVSS No. 228, it would be incumbent on vehicle manufacturers to ensure that their vehicles comply with all the impact zone requirements defined within the standard when tested by NHTSA. Accordingly, proposed FMVSS No. 228 does not specify these provisions.
In section VII.A, we explained the requirement for the amount of test area within the Child and Adult Headform Test Areas that must be capable of achieving HIC not greater than 1000. The basis for this amount of area is two-thirds of the Hood Area, and the Hood Area by definition is always larger than the test area. Thus, more than two-thirds of the test area must be HIC1000 Area, and the remainder (less than two-thirds) must be HIC1700 Area. More than a decade and a half of agency testing with the pedestrian headform to the specifications of the GTR show that this level of performance is practicable.
NHTSA's pedestrian headform testing provides the data needed to understand the distribution of HIC outcomes on U.S. vehicle hood areas. Test data have been collected in numerous research studies
This analysis is considered a conservative approximation of practicability (it underestimates the degree to which vehicles could meet the proposed limits) for four reasons.
First, 109 of these 272 tests were conducted at the NCAP RFC and Euro NCAP test velocity of 40 km/h, which is higher than the 35 km/h speed proposed here. The HIC outcomes in those tests would be expected to be lower if the proposed 35 km/h impact speed were employed at those same impact locations. On the other hand, the 33 tests included in the Ref. 1 study were conducted at 32 km/h since, at the time that research was performed, the draft GTR procedure specified that lower impact speed. Those same tests would be expected to have slightly higher HIC at a speed of 35 km/hr. All of those test outcomes were included in the analysis; however, it should be noted that there were over three times as many tests at 40 km/hr as there were at 32 km/h in the sample. Second, as noted earlier, vehicle designs have gotten more protective over the years as evidenced by the lower HIC outcomes in more recent vehicles.
Third, we note that certain tests have not been included in our analysis of practicability, but note them here for completeness. Eleven NHTSA tests into the windshield were not included since the windshield is not covered by the GTR. However, of those eleven tests, nine had HIC below 1000 and the other two tests had HIC below 1700, which supports a finding that the HIC 1000 and 1700 limits are reasonable and practicable. Finally, six tests on fully deployed pop-up hood systems from two vehicles (see Ref. 5) were not included in this analysis, since those tests included European-market-only hood actuator components installed on a U.S. vehicle and it is unclear how such vehicles would have been configured if FMVSS No. 228 were in place. Nonetheless, all six of those tests had HIC below 1000. Taken together, inclusion of these additional data would
NHTSA understands that these data represent discrete points on the hood surface tested in the program and do not describe the performance of any particular vehicle hood in its totality. Nonetheless, taken together, the analysis of existing NHTSA-performed pedestrian head impact testing indicates that the proposed compliance limits and requirements for proposed FMVSS No. 228 are practicable for U.S. vehicles.
Although very rare, based on the vehicles tested by NHTSA, it appears possible for the numerical value of two thirds of the Hood Area to exceed the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area.
In drafting the regulatory text of this NPRM, one of NHTSA's goals has been to produce a proposal that has a high degree of fidelity to GTR 9. However, we have found the need to define some terms in a slightly different way than the GTR to produce an objective standard that meets the requirements of the Safety Act and the needs of the self-certification environment in the United States. In this section, we highlight some of the differences in terminology between GTR 9 and FMVSS No. 228, after which we provide details related to, and request comments on, an “Amendment 3” proposal that has since 2021 reemerged as the source of potential revisions to GTR 9.
As we explained in section VI of this preamble, the major components that constitute the hood are the Hood Top, Hood Area, Child Headform Test Area, Adult Headform Test Area and HIC Unlimited Area. In some cases, GTR 9 uses identical or very similar terminology; however, the terminology sometimes does not have the same meaning. In other cases, the terminology is different or the terms do not exist. Table VIII.3 references the terms defined in FMVSS No. 228 (first column) and the related terms in GTR 9 (second column). The focus here is on the terms used to define the hood surface and tested area.
The term Hood Top and its related borders, shown in rows 1-4 of table VIII.3, has equivalents in GTR 9,
The area described in the “Child Headform Test Area” term in FMVSS No. 228 is not described by a specific term in GTR 9. However, an equivalent set of borders for defining the area is provided in S7.3.2 of GTR No. 9 (see table VIII.1).
Rows 9-12 in table VIII.3 show the corresponding regulatory text sections related to Child Headform Test Area.
Similarly, “Adult Headform Test Area” in FMVSS No. 228 does not have an equivalent term in GTR 9. However, an equivalent set of borders for restricting the testing is provided in S7.4.2 (see table VIII.2)
Rows 13-16 in table VIII.3 show the corresponding regulatory text sections related to Adult Headform Test Area.
Although there are terminology differences between FMVSS No. 228 and GTR 9, the regulatory text of this NPRM is essentially aligned with GTR 9. To the extent there are differences, the differences would enable the proposed standard to meet Safety Act requirements. As discussed throughout this preamble, however, the NPRM's regulatory text reflects the wording of the GTR to benchmark the GTR's concepts and methods implemented as an FMVSS. NHTSA has requested comments on the pros and cons of various aspects of the NPRM's regulatory text, particularly with respect to the areas of the vehicle that would be subject to headform testing under the GTR's wording, and has focused readers on ways NHTSA believes the regulatory text could possibly be enhanced to achieve more safety benefits in the U.S.
As early as 2011, in discussions at WP.29, the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA)
One of the main changes proposed by Amendment 3 relates to how the c
The agency analyzed a regulatory approach incorporating the aspect of Amendment 3 related to a reduction of the HIC1000 area. The PRIA discusses this approach as Alternative 1. This analysis includes a cost teardown study and assumes the costs associated with meeting the requirements are similar for a regulatory alternative incorporating Amendment 3 and the proposed rule. The details of this analysis can be found in the PRIA for this NPRM. The equivalent life saved (ELS) estimate and cost per ELS of Amendment 3 compared to the proposed rule are shown in table VIII.4 below. The monetized benefits and net benefits of Amendment 3 compared to the proposed rule are shown in table VIII.5. In comparison to the proposed rule, the equivalent lives saved under a regulatory alternative incorporating Amendment 3 are approximately 59% of that under the proposed rule. Under the assumption that the costs are the same for both the regulatory alternative and proposed rule, the cost per ELS under Amendment 3 is nearly double that of the proposed rule. Lastly, net benefits under Amendment 3 are approximately 55% of the benefits of the proposed rule.
The second significant change proposed by Amendment 3 is related to the targeting method to determine the point on the test surface that is assigned the HIC value from the impact test. As we stated previously, NHTSA's proposed method of targeting areas on the hood and assigning HIC values through the first point of contact is consistent with GTR 9, and we refer to it as the “3D Method.” NHTSA believes GTR 9 is sufficiently objective using the 3D Method and that Amendment 3 would not improve the objectivity of the regulation.
We refer to the Amendment 3 suggested method as the “2D Measuring Point Method” or, for simplicity, the “2D Method” in the discussion below. Under the 2D Method, the contact point between the mid-sagittal plane of the headform and the hood, referred to as the “measure point” in the GTR amendment, serves to define whether HIC1000 or HIC1700 applies to the particular impact. The “2D measure point” is established prior to a launch and the HIC limit is assigned to that point. Proponents of the amendment argued that the 2D Method improved objectivity over the 3D Method because, with the 3D Method, the first point of contact may be related to multiple lateral headform launch positions.
To illustrate, figure VIII.1 is a top down and rearward-looking view of a hood with a sharp bend in the lateral plane. Because of this sharp transition in the hood profile, it is possible for the headform impactor to contact the same or nearly the same point (first point of contact, which in this case is the sharp transition point) for different launch positions of the headform. However, both the 2D and 3D Methods will have the same range of headform launch positions that would result in the first point of contact at the sharp transition.
As explained above, in the 2D Method, the 2D measure point on the hood is established prior to a launch and the pre-test position of the headform is determined by aligning the mid-sagittal plane of the headform to that point. Although proponents of the 2D Method argued that this method of pre-determining the test point on the hood and assigning the test results to that point improves objectivity of the test, NHTSA disagrees. For the hood profile shown in figure VIII.1, the test results for a range of 2D measure points will be associated with the headform impacting the same hood location (the sharp transition). NHTSA believes this situation creates ambiguity rather than improves objectivity because in some instances, the HIC assignment for a point might not be related to the point being impacted. As illustrated in figure VIII.1, the HIC values were assigned to points on the slope, from an impact location further up the slope. In contrast, the 3D Method is more representative of real-world impacts as it assigns each test result to its corresponding location of impact (first contact point) (see figure VIII.2).
Additionally, in the 3D Method both the lateral pre-test position of the headform as well as the first point of contact are known, which enables NHTSA to fully define each test in a compliance proceeding.
NHTSA is also concerned about the safety implications of the 2D Method.
Previous real-world studies have shown that many pedestrian head impacts take place along the hood-fender junction. One study found the most severe head injuries concentrated towards the outer third of the hood.
The proposed headform impactors are hemispherical and completely featureless. The mass of the child headform is 3.5 kg and that of the adult headform is 4.5 kg. During the development of the GTR, researchers attempted to determine the appropriate “effective mass” of the headforms to account for the influence of the neck/torso mass on the force the head would impart to the hood. The researchers determined that, averaged over a variety of vehicle shapes, the “effective mass” was comparable to the head mass itself.
The diameter of the proposed headforms is 165 mm for both the child and adult headforms. The average cross-sectional axis of a 6-year-old child head in the transverse plane at its forehead is about 165 mm (circumference is 523 mm according to Irwin, 1997).
Each headform would have three parts: an aluminum hemisphere, a synthetic covering, and an end plate. The main hemisphere of each headform is hollowed out to eliminate internal corners and mitigate low-frequency resonance. The lighter hemisphere has a deeper cavity to achieve the same 165 mm diameter as the heavier, adult headform. Both the proposed child and adult headforms have vinyl coverings and the headforms and coverings together are designed to achieve a specific system response.
The proposed headform end plates are bolted onto the hemisphere and hold the synthetic coverings in place. This NPRM specifies the material and dimensions of the end plates. A triaxial arrangement of accelerometers is mounted on the inner surface of each end plate such that they are located at the centroid of the headforms.
Each combination of hemisphere, synthetic covering, and end plate (including accelerometers and their mount blocks) would assure that the center of gravity of the complete headform is coincident with the geometric center of the spheroid (
A complete set of drawings for each headform is provided as part of the regulatory text of proposed FMVSS No. 228 in figures 13-27. The drawings are, to NHTSA's knowledge, consistent with the current production of two known manufacturers of headforms that the agency has used in testing and evaluation described in section IX.C .
This NPRM proposes a set of pre-test qualification limits to ensure the headforms are functioning properly.
The proposed qualification tests are headform drop tests. The proposed qualification requirements are based on the peak resultant acceleration measured within the headform in the qualification test. The test apparatus is shown in figure 12 of proposed FMVSS No. 228,
The proposed apparatus and procedure have been adapted from those used to qualify the headforms of ATDs specified in 49 CFR part 572. The proposed test for the child headform was adapted from the test used for the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy (part 572, subpart N), while the proposed test for the adult headform was adapted from the test for the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male (part 572, subpart E). In the proposed tests, the headform is suspended at a height of 376 mm and a drop angle of 50 degrees and 65 degrees, with respect to the vertical, for the child and adult headforms, respectively.
For each pedestrian headform, there would be qualification tests consisting of three head drops with the headform rotated 120° around its symmetrical axis after each drop. We propose that the resultant acceleration of the child headform must fall between 245-300 g's for drops at each rotation. For the adult headform, the proposed limits are 225-275 g's. The limits are the same as those currently in part 572 for headform qualification of the Hybrid III 6-year-old child and Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male test dummies. These G-limits represent ±10 percent of the midpoint of data obtained from headform drops in tests conducted for the Hybrid III 6-year-old and 50th percentile adult male dummies. In addition, we propose requirements for off-axis sensitivity and a unimodal response, as well as a protocol to clean the headform prior to qualification testing to improve repeatability. These factors are in addition to GTR 9 specifications and are based on NHTSA's years of testing and qualifying headforms. They would be consistent with other part 572 headform requirements.
The headforms have been shown to produce repeatable and reproducible results. Repeatability is defined as the similarity of responses from a single headform when subjected to multiple repeats of a given test condition. Reproducibility is defined as the similarity of test responses from multiple headforms when subjected to multiple repeats of a given test condition. NHTSA assessed the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) of the headforms in qualification drop tests and actual hood tests.
In headform drop tests, we assessed the R&R of child and adult headforms
The headforms were dropped from a height of 376 mm, which is the height specified in GTR 9 and the height used in other part 572 headform qualification tests. However, we are considering raising the drop height. Typically, in NHTSA's practice an ATD qualification procedure exercises the ATD near the pass/fail reference measure. In this case, the HIC scores obtained from the 376 mm drop are slightly below the HIC1000 limit proposed for the pedestrian headform requirement, and well below the HIC1700 requirement. (Average HIC produced by the 376 mm drop are 876 for the child headform, and 768 for the adult headform). Therefore, we request comments on raising the drop height to a height that would produce HIC scores somewhere between 1000 and 1700.
We also request comments on changing the qualification bounds of 245-300 g's for the child headform and 225-275 g's for the adult headform. For other ATDs used in FMVSSs, we generally set qualification bounds by examining data from multiple test labs, several ATDs, and ATDs built by different manufacturers. In other words, the qualification bounds are derived from the qualification data, not set
We understand that the qualification bounds of GTR 9 were set
Since the publication of the headform evaluation report, NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) has continued to conduct many more headform qualification tests to support vehicle impact testing. This updated dataset provides a significantly greater number of samples from a much larger number of headforms. These data can be used to better determine whether the current GTR 9 qualification bounds are appropriate and sufficient, rather than using only the data from table IX.1. Table IX.2 summarizes this updated dataset.
The average responses are almost exactly in the middle of the GTR specification for a large number of headforms and tests, and the current GTR 9 tolerance of ±10% closely approximates two standard deviations for both headforms (slightly less for the child headform and slightly more for the adult headform). Based on this information, the FMVSS No. 228 proposal retains the GTR specification rather than providing an alternative specification unique to NHTSA.
While the data shown in table IX.2 constitute a substantial set of 120 data points from 24 different headforms, our tests were conducted at a single laboratory (NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center) with headforms from three headform manufacturers.
Thus, although we have used the conservatively wide bounds from part 572 in the proposed regulatory text for this NPRM, we seek qualification data from commenters. We will examine all qualification data provided and anticipate that, when new qualification data are combined with our current set of data, the bounds could be tightened, such as to one standard deviation or less. For a final rule, our intent is to set bound widths as narrowly as is reasonable to control variability to the extent possible.
We note that a comparison of qualification results for Cellbond vs. FTSS headforms used in our research programs did show some differences. In qualification tests, Cellbond and FTSS headforms were essentially equivalent in terms of the peak acceleration they measured, but HIC scores differed between the FTSS and Cellbond child headform by about 5%. Also, a phase difference in the signal response appears evident, with the Cellbond units producing peaks in acceleration that occur about 0.5 ms earlier in both the adult and child headforms. However, as discussed below, the FTSS and Cellbond headforms are essentially equivalent when considering the HIC scores produced by hood impacts.
We also assessed the performance of the headforms in tests on actual hoods. The Cellbond and FTSS headforms were evaluated on three vehicle models: the 2010 Kia Forte, the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, and the 2010 Acura MDX. We also used different types of accelerometers to assess the effect of damped versus undamped models. (Although these vehicle models are now more than a decade old, the results and conclusions are still valid as they relate to how the headforms performed relative to an actual hood. The assessment was done in the 2012-2014 timeframe on new hoods. The vehicles were selected to provide a cross-section of vehicle manufacturers, vehicle classes and hood contours.)
We selected three test points in areas on the hood where HIC was expected to exceed HIC1000 and approach HIC1700. In other words, we exercised the headforms near the proposed HIC performance thresholds. The three points were: an inboard point along the WAD1000 border (near the front edge of the hood); a point just inside the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference Line (near the fender); and an inboard point near the Rear Reference Line (near the rear edge of the hood).
We conducted tests at all three points with one headform brand/accelerometer combination before switching to another. Each time a headform switch was made, a new hood was installed. For each vehicle, the impact points were tested in the same order. The order of headform use was: (1) FTSS (undamped accelerometers); (2) Cellbond (damped accelerometers); and, (3) FTSS (damped accelerometers). The hoods of the Forte and the LaCrosse were sufficiently short that only child headforms were used. Child and adult headforms were used on the Acura MDX.
Qualification tests were performed on each headform before and after the test series to ascertain the accuracy of their measurements. The headforms met all of the qualification response requirements, both before and after the tests.
We note that when comparing tests at the same test point on different samples of the same hood, the data also represent differences that may exist due to production variability of the hood itself. Without extensive testing of many copies of a particular hood, it was not possible for NHTSA to separate this production variability from that of the headform and test procedure. HIC results are presented table IX.3 for the three vehicles tested.
At the two other points (near the WAD1000 border and the rear HIC Unlimited Margin), variability was over 10 percent. However, at both points the HIC scores were well below HIC1000. In addition, we note that for lower HIC values, a similar absolute difference in HIC value represents a higher
Also, in the test with the FTSS-damped headform run near the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line, there was a spot weld separation within the hood structure where an inner layer of sheet metal was mated to the bottom side of the outer layer. The test had a HIC of 969. No separation was observed in the other two tests, which had more comparable HIC scores (1283 and 1324).
The results of the hood testing program also demonstrated good reproducibility of the headforms' measurement of HIC.
We analyzed HIC scores produced by child headforms fitted with Endevco model 7264G damped accelerometers. For the six pairs of tests considered, the variability was no greater than 7 percent in any of the paired tests. Also, there was no apparent trend in which one headform produced higher HIC scores than the other. For four of the test points, the lowest HIC score was produced by the FTSS unit. In the other two, the Cellbond scores were lowest. We did observe that the FTSS child unit had relatively high variability for HIC (Standard Deviation = 46), but not peak acceleration. Adult headforms had much lower variability for all conditions.
This NPRM proposes a specification for damped accelerometers in the headforms. Although the GTR does not refer specifically to damped
NHTSA's testing has been with undamped accelerometers. The testing and findings are described in section IX.C.5.c, below. We did not observe any signal irregularities of the sort observed in the J-NCAP study. We did observe a difference in peak measurements depending on the type of accelerometer (they were generally lower with damped units). In vehicle tests, these sharp pulses occur when hard metal-to-metal contacts or mechanical fractures take place. If an accelerometer is attached directly to a vehicle structure (such as the frame rail), the sharp pulse can often saturate the measurement system. However, ATDs such as crash test dummies are designed to avoid internal mechanical fractures or metal-to-metal contact that could produce sharp pulses. Therefore, undamped accelerometers are typically specified for ATDs used in FMVSSs.
Nonetheless, although we saw no resonance issues in our tests with ATD heads fitted with the undamped units, we propose damped accelerometers for the pedestrian headforms. We envision using the same headforms in NCAP where the test protocol includes potential testing of the windshield, cowl, and A-pillar. When testing such areas, the uncovered rear portion of the headform may come into contact with a vehicle structure such that an undamped accelerometer may produce a spurious signal and invalidate a test, similar to what was observed in J-NCAP testing. We request comment on the proposed use of damped accelerometers and whether it would be more appropriate to use an undamped accelerometer in proposed FMVSS No. 228, as is used in part 572 ATD heads.
This NPRM also proposes to specify the performance of the accelerometers in accordance with SAE J211/1_202208 (2022), “Instrumentation for Impact Test Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,” in lieu of what GTR 9 references, which is ISO 6487 (2002), “Measurement Techniques in Impact Tests.” SAE J211 and ISO 6487 are essentially equivalent. SAE J211 is the most current of the two, and FMVSSs have historically referenced SAE J211, not the ISO standard. For those reasons, we propose to reference the current version of SAE J211 in proposed FMVSS No. 228.
In our test program assessing the performance of the Cellbond and FTSS headforms on the 2010 Kia Forte, the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, and the 2010 Acura MDX (results above), we also used different types of accelerometers to assess the effect of damped versus undamped models. We examined our headform test signals for any indication of resonant vibrations and examined any differences in responses depending on whether damped or undamped accelerometers were used.
At each of the six test points (three on the Buick, three on the Kia), one test was run with undamped units (in an FTSS headform) and two were run with damped units (one each for the FTSS and Cellbond headforms). The highest HIC score was recorded with the undamped (FTSS) unit for five of the six test points, with a percent difference ranging from 3 percent to 19 percent higher. For the other test point, all three HIC scores were nearly the same (less than 3 percent difference).
We also checked the test signals (figure IX.1) in all tests with undamped accelerometers and did not observe any
We examined our qualification head drop signals for differences in responses depending on whether damped or undamped accelerometers were used. (This comparison was carried out for the Cellbond units only). We did not observe any consistent difference between accelerometer types. The magnitude in the peak acceleration was about the same for both. Also, we did not observe any perceptible phase shift.
An active hood uses actuators and lever arms to automatically lift the hood when a sensor detects that a pedestrian has been struck by the front-end of the vehicle. The system acts to pre-position the hood before the secondary (head) impact takes place with an oncoming pedestrian. In doing so, space is created between the hood and rigid components in the engine bay, thus reducing the risk of injury to the pedestrian. Compared to non-deploying hoods, active hoods offer the potential to greatly increase the free penetration space underneath the hood. They may be especially advantageous because they create extra space in the cowl area where pedestrian head strikes to the hood are most apt to take place. NHTSA testing indicates that, historically, the rear of the hood near the cowl has included stiff structures, giving HIC values close to or above 1700, especially in areas near the hinges at the rear corners of the hood and around the wiper mounts. For vehicles with non-deploying hoods, the cowl usually lies rearward of the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line. A HIC1700 relaxation area is typically allocated to the Adult Headform Test Area adjacent to the margin.
FMVSS No. 228 would include provisions in the compliance test procedure that provides for deployment of active hoods.
Under FMVSS No. 228, the point of first contact between the headform and the hood would be determined while the hood is fully deployed. However,
NHTSA believes there are very few recent vehicles in the U.S. vehicle fleet with active hood designs. Therefore, data on their performance are limited. According to a 2014 survey of European sales data, only about 8% of new light vehicles sold in Europe had active hoods. North American variants of those models make up about 7% of light vehicle sales in the U.S.
In general, vehicles with active hoods performed better than vehicles without active hoods in Euro NCAP tests. To date, NHTSA's research program has tested four vehicles equipped with active hood systems. Two of these vehicles (2014 Cadillac ATS, 2017 Audi A4) were U.S. variants retrofitted with European active hood components.
Based on these test results, the safety benefit relative to the cost of implementing an active hood system may not be significant for some vehicles. However, there is still reason to believe that these types of systems may become more common in the U.S. market because it may be a viable design solution for some vehicles to meet the proposed pedestrian protection requirements. Therefore, NHTSA is considering developing a set of compliance test requirements to assure the proper deployment and function of active hoods. For example, we would like to consider the appropriateness of requirements for the lift mechanisms to assure that they do not collapse inappropriately under the full body weight of a pedestrian. We seek comment and data on the real-world performance and proper function of active hood systems observed in the E.U. and elsewhere. We request information to shed light on the reliability of the systems, including information on the rate of false-positive deployments. We are interested in learning more about the consequences to pedestrians if a collision occurs below the hood activation threshold. Would a pedestrian be placed in undue risk if the undeployed hood is overly stiff? Should there be HIC limits in headform impact tests on an undeployed hood to ensure HIC values are not too high (
NHTSA has examined the potential effect of this NPRM on other Federal motor vehicle safety standards and programs. As discussed below, the agency has determined that FMVSS No. 228 would not affect the ability of a vehicle to meet all other FMVSS applying to the vehicle. We request comment on our conclusions. Vehicles in the U.S. already have hoods that meet GTR 9, which indicates the compatibility of the GTR (and proposed FMVSS No. 228) with applicable FMVSSs. Further, GTR 9 has been implemented by Contracting Parties worldwide that have standards that are similar to many of those discussed below, which also show how pedestrian protective hoods meeting FMVSS No. 228 could be integrated into vehicle designs.
FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, specifies requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. FMVSS No. 228 would not affect the performance of the windshield wiping and washing systems, as the “hood area” subject to FMVSS No. 228 would preclude the area in which the systems are located.
FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment,” would not be affected by this proposed standard as the relevant equipment covered by Standard No. 108 would generally be outside of the hood area. Yet, if pop-up style headlights are in the hood area and are subject to headform testing, FMVSS No. 228 would require the vehicle to meet the tests when the lights are both deployed and in their stowed position. This is to optimize pedestrian protection in the real world, as an impact could occur when the movable lights are deployed and when they are stowed.
FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” is intended to reduce the number of deaths of vehicle occupants, and the severity of injuries, by specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of forces and accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in frontal crashes, and by specifying equipment requirements for active and passive restraint systems. FMVSS No. 228 would not interfere with a manufacturer's ability to meet FMVSS No. 208, because the vehicle structures related to occupant protection in general and frontal crashes in particular, should be substantially unaffected by any redesign needed for pedestrian head protection.
FMVSS No. 113, “Hood latch system,” requires that a front opening hood must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system. FMVSS No. 228 would not interfere with a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 113 because vehicles are already manufactured to meet FMVSS No. 113 and the requirements of GTR 9 (and by implication, the proposed requirements of FMVSS No. 228).
FMVSS No. 401, “Interior trunk release,” requires a trunk release
FMVSS No. 219, “Windshield zone intrusion,” provides that a vehicle's hood must not enter a defined zone in front of the vehicle's windshield during a frontal barrier crash test at 48 km/h (30 mph). The purpose of the standard is to reduce injuries and fatalities that result from occupant contact with vehicle components, such as the hood, that are displaced into the occupant compartment through the windshield or into the zone immediately forward of the windshield aperture during a frontal crash. NHTSA concludes that FMVSS No. 228 would not interfere with a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219, as vehicles are already manufactured that meet FMVSS No. 219 and the specifications of proposed FMVSS No. 228.
NHTSA plans for proposed FMVSS No. 228 to work with FMVSS No. 127 which includes a requirement for pedestrian automatic emergency braking (PAEB). PAEB safety systems are designed to stop the vehicle automatically before striking a pedestrian up to a certain speed or reduce the speed at which an impact occurs if the vehicle's initial speed is too high to avoid impact. More specifically, the target population for proposed FMVSS No. 228 was adjusted downward by anticipating the potential benefits of FMVSS No. 127. We also note that it is possible that there may be additional fatalities and non-fatal injuries that would fall into the target population potentially addressed by FMVSS No. 127 in cases that PAEB results in crash mitigation rather than avoidance. That is, for many impacts that cannot be avoided due to the closing speed of the vehicle, PAEB will lower the vehicle's speed so that more impacts will be at speeds of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less, which are pedestrian impacts that this proposed FMVSS No. 228 pedestrian head protection standard addresses. For these impacts FMVSS No. 228 would ensure the striking vehicles have features that protect against serious to fatal head injury in these impacts. Due to data limitations, however, we are unable to estimate the number of additional fatalities and non-fatal injuries that may be potentially addressed by proposed FMVSS No. 228 following the adoption of FMVSS No. 127.
49 CFR part 581, issued under the Cost Savings Act,
As explained below in the Benefits and Costs section of this notice, the costs associated with this proposal are assumed to be based on increased weight and its effect on fuel economy. See table XIII.2 for a breakdown of the estimated costs.
FMVSS No. 228, if adopted, would lay the regulatory foundation for NHTSA's adopting a crashworthiness pedestrian protection component into NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), as laid out in the May 26, 2023 NCAP RFC,
There are important differences, however, between FMVSS No. 228 and the NCAP RFC. While both mark off the Hood Top in a similar way and the impactors used for testing are the same, the final test areas differ, as do the outcomes of the tests (FMVSS No. 228 would have pass/fail criteria while NCAP would determine specific scores at each test point). The NCAP RFC test area is larger than the FMVSS No. 228 test area due to the HIC Unlimited Area on the sides of the Hood using a 50 mm offset (NCAP RFC) rather than the 82.5 mm Offset Line (FMVSS No. 228). In section VI.C of this preamble, we requested comment on modifying the final rule offset to 50 mm.
Additionally, on the front boundary of the test area, the NCAP RFC does not utilize an 82.5 mm Offset Line and does not limit the testing to areas rearward of the LERL, if WAD1000 is forward of that line. Thus, test points may be on the bumper or grille area. For the FMVSS No. 228 procedure, there are no test points forward of the LERL, regardless of the WAD1000 location. Again, in section VI.C of this preamble we have requested comment on testing to WAD1000 regardless of its location and the most forward of WAD1000 or the 82.5 mm Offset line. Similarly, for the NCAP RFC there is no Offset Line of any size on the rear boundary. Additionally, the windshield is a valid impact location. In section VI.C of this preamble, we requested comment on extending the testing to WAD2100 and onto the windshield.
The NCAP RFC also differs from FMVSS No. 228 on how impact points are targeted. As explained, in section VII.C of this preamble, we explain how FMVSS No. 228 uses a first point of contact/3D method to target any point within the Child and Adult Headform Test Area that can be touched by the impactor. Thus, there are an infinite number of test locations. However, such a testing system does not lend itself to a scoring scheme. The NCAP RFC limits the number of valid test points by marking off a 100 mm by 100 mm grid within the test border. These grid points are targeted via the “Aiming Point,” which is the intersection of the line of flight of the headform centerline with the hood surface. Due to the angle of the impact direction, the impact point on the hood will always be slightly forward of the Aiming Point. Nonetheless, the HIC score for the impact is assigned to the grid point that was aimed at (HIC15 < 650 = Green, 650 ≤ HIC15 < 1000 = Yellow, 1000 ≤ HIC15 < 1350 = Orange, 1350 ≤ HIC15 < 1700 = Brown, HIC15 ≥ 1700 = Red). This method has the benefit of being able to assign a HIC score to every grid point regardless of the contour of the hood, which is essential for a rating scheme. However, such a method is not necessary for FMVSS No. 228, which incorporates a pass/fail requirement for any point that can be contacted within the test area. In addition, the grid method is limited in its ability to test a specific location on the hood that may be particularly injurious to a pedestrian, which, again, is important for a minimum performance requirement.
For the NCAP RFC, the impactor used (Child versus Adult Headform) depends
Finally, the impact speed for the NCAP RFC is 40 km/h as opposed to 35 km/h in FMVSS No. 228. NHTSA sees no inherent conflict in this difference. We continue to believe the 35 km/h impact is well supported by field data as providing a regulatory minimum performance standard for pedestrian head impact. Using a higher impact speed in the NCAP RFC may mean that not all vehicles receive credit for NCAP pedestrian protection, thus giving consumers additional information with which to make their vehicle purchasing decision and incentivizing designs that go beyond the minimum provided to meet the FMVSS.
As the above discussion shows, there are important differences between the NCAP RFC and FMVSS No. 228. The fact that there will be a pedestrian crashworthiness component of NCAP does not mean there should not be a standard related to the same safety risk. For example, the introduction of the frontal and side crashworthiness portions of NCAP did not lead the agency to abandon standards in these areas. NCAP remains a consumer information program that provides important information for vehicle purchasing decisions, which encourages manufacturers to voluntarily make changes to vehicles to attain positive NCAP test results and thereby improve safety. FMVSSs, on the other hand, are mandatory and specify a minimum level of safety that all vehicles sold must provide. The two programs are complementary and beneficial to safety.
We propose that FMVSS No. 228 would become effective the first September 1, two years after the date of publication of a final rule. For example, if a final rule were published in October of 2025, the effective date would be September 1, 2028. Most passenger cars, minivans, cross-over vehicles, and other vehicles under 3500 kg (7716 lb) GVWR sold in the U.S. share similar global designs as models currently sold in the E.U. Manufacturers probably would need considerably less time than two years to meet the requirements specified in the proposed rule due to their familiarity with similar requirements already established in the EU. However, we propose to allow manufacturers two years of lead time to assure that vehicles unique to the U.S. market—such as large SUVs and pickup trucks—are in full compliance with the standard.
This NPRM initiates the process of implementing GTR 9 into the FMVSS.
From our observations of vehicle designs following the GTR in 2008, it seems that vehicle front-ends, including hoods, have evolved in design to meet European pedestrian protection requirements. The very latest vehicle models—those that have been designed with the GTR in mind from the platform level up—have contoured hoods, fenders, and headlamps that dovetail closely with the borders and margins of the GTR. An example of this is seen in one of the vehicles we tested: the 2011 Hyundai Tucson. The Tucson has curved headlamps that blend into the fenders, and they are positioned just outside the Child Headform Test Area and right up to the HIC Unlimited Margin. Without the margin, about half of the headlamp would lie within the test area.
The GTR specifies that the rear border of the Child Headform Test Area is either the WAD1700 line or a line 82.5 mm forward of the Rear Reference Line, whichever is most forward. For the Tucson and the 2011 Buick Lacrosse, the two lines coincide (except for a very small area near the hinges). Thus, there is no Adult Headform Test Area for either of these vehicles. The design is such that the hood is exactly the size necessary to avoid having an Adult Headform Test Area. We believe this is unlikely to be a random occurrence. It appears that, for many years, vehicle manufacturers have considered the GTR provisions when designing their vehicles.
Notwithstanding how the current GTR border specifications seem to affect hood designs, the agency's test data, summarized in section VII.D, indicate that meeting the requirements discussed in this preamble are practicable and that testing beyond the GTR borders into the HIC Unlimited Area is also feasible. We request comments on the lead time needed to achieve these outcomes.
NHTSA has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) that assesses the benefits, costs and other impacts of this NPRM.
Table XIII.2 provides the estimated annual cost of the proposal, broken down by passenger car and LTV. Many manufacturers of vehicles that would be subject to the proposed rule also manufacture vehicles in the European Union (EU) market. Potentially, some of these vehicles under production could be designed to a regulatory body's application of GTR 9 that may differ from a NHTSA rule implementing GTR 9 in the United States (see previous discussion of Amendment 3 in section VIII.B). Therefore, for such vehicles, there could be a potential one-time cost associated with redesigning vehicle hoods to comply with the requirements adopted by NHTSA. The PRIA made use of a teardown study conducted by the agency to compare the same or similar models of vehicles with and without the countermeasures that would be used to meet the proposed rule. The assemblies had no perceived differences in design or assembly, but did indicate a slight difference in weight. Therefore, the potential one-time cost associated with redesigning vehicle hoods to meet the requirements specified in the proposed rule are expected to be negligible, especially when considered on a per-vehicle basis, across design cycles, and given the lead time specified in the proposed rule. This analysis estimates the impact that the incremental weight associated with meeting the requirements specified in the proposed rule may have on fuel economy for passenger cars and LTVs, respectively.
As the costs associated with fuel economy are incurred over the course of a vehicle's lifespan, these costs are discounted. When discounted at 3% and 7%, the incremental cost associated with the impact to fuel economy is estimated to be in the range of $2.86-$3.50 for passenger cars. Similarly, LTVs have a per vehicle cost of $3.29-$4.08. The overall combined fleet cost range is estimated to be from $48.9 million to $60.4 million.
Table XIII.3 provides a summary of the cost and benefits. To make a comparison across alternatives, the primary outcome of the regulatory action must be quantified on a single numerical index. Therefore, safety benefits, measured in fatalities and non-fatal injuries mitigated, are translated to Equivalent Lives Saved (ELS) and monetized benefits. This table provides the cost, ELS, cost per ELS, monetized benefits (assuming benefits of $11.9 million per ELS) and net benefits at the 3% and 7% discount rates. The overall ELS ranges from 44.46 to 54.87. The cost per ELS is $1.10 million. The overall monetized benefits range is $529.74 million-$653.76 million. After subtracting the cost at each discount rate, the overall net benefits range is $480.79 million-$593.3 million.
In several parts of this preamble, NHTSA explained how the agency is considering alternatives to the GTR-based test procedure reflected in this NPRM's regulatory text. The agency requested comments on the alternatives that NHTSA would consider when developing the final rule.
• In section VI.C, several options for expanding the testable area were presented along with associated rationale. This also included
• In section VIII.B, GTR 9 Amendment 3 is discussed. Amendment 3 would, among other things, reduce the amount of HIC1000 test area compared to proposed FMVSS No. 228. In that section of the preamble, we provide the costs and benefits of a regulatory approach under Amendment 3. The details of this assessment can be found in the PRIA for this NPRM as Alternative 1.
• We now discuss a potential modification to the test procedure that would require the entire Hood Top to be tested. Under this version of the test procedure, the HIC Unlimited Area would no longer exist. Any point within the boundary of the Hood Top, as described in section VI.A, would be a valid impact point. The agency sees this as consistent with the notion that the HIC Unlimited areas were added due to practicability concerns, not based on the concept that a pedestrian's head would not strike these parts of the Hood Top. Therefore, a procedure including these areas would provide an outcome more aligned with optimizing the safety benefits of this rulemaking. The PRIA discusses this approach as Alternative 3.
We believe reduction of the area of the hood that can be tested by subtracting areas at the perimeter of the Hood Top was based on the premise that it was simply not practicable to design hoods with perimeters that could meet HIC1000 or HIC1700 limits. The agency test data summarized in section VII.D, however, indicates that it is feasible for U.S. vehicles to achieve the HIC requirements in the “HIC Unlimited Area.” Further, in order to achieve a significant safety benefit to pedestrians, the areas designated as the HIC Unlimited Area using the procedure in GTR 9 could, instead, be required to meet either a HIC 1000 or 1700 limit, depending on the manufacturer's assignment of those respective areas on the vehicle.
Under a procedure where the entire Hood Top is tested, the HIC1000 Area could be required to cover at least two-thirds of the Hood Top and the HIC1700 Area could be required to cover the remainder. Additionally, it is our expectation, due to previous agency testing, that the 3D Method of impact point targeting would remain appropriate even at the edges of the Hood Top.
Under a test scheme that includes the entire Hood Top as the testable area, an issue discussed earlier in this preamble would remain for large vehicles whose LERL is rearward of WAD1000. For such vehicles, if the test area were limited only to the Hood Top, areas on the front of the vehicle that could be contacted by a child's head would not be regulated. We note that this is also the case with the current proposed standard, as mentioned above in section VI.C.1.a. Comments are requested on the merits of including a procedure for testing the grille area on such vehicles, assuming FMVSS No. 228 were to include the entire Hood Top as the testable area.
Table XIV.1 shows a comparison of the estimated benefits in terms of ELS and monetized benefits for an FMVSS No. 228 that reflects the wording of GTR 9 (presented in the NPRM's regulatory text) and a requirement that would test the entire Hood Top. Additional details on the benefits and cost of the proposal are presented in section XIII. Under a requirement to test the entire Hood Top, both ELS and monetized benefits would be approximately 159% of that under the proposed rule (
NHTSA performed a break-even analysis for this alternative. This break-even analysis considers the cost at which this regulatory alternative would be net cost-effective and net beneficial. NHTSA estimated that break-even is at $50.48-$62.28 per vehicle cost, discounted at 7% and 3%. NHTSA requests information on the potential costs of this alternative.
Although this alternative is estimated to be substantially more beneficial than the rule presented in the NPRM's regulatory text, in addition to a lack of information about cost, the agency believes there are unknowns related to the practicability of testing the entire Hood Top. The agency requests comment on the alternative of requiring testing of the entire Hood Top.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory procedures. This rulemaking is “significant” under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This NPRM proposes to implement the provisions of GTR 9 into NHTSA's regulations as a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, with possible adjustments to address safety issues and a regulatory framework that are unique to the U.S. The costs, benefits, and other economic impacts of this NPRM have been discussed in sections above and are analyzed in detail in the PRIA.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although NHTSA is not required to issue an initial RFA, NHTSA sets forth the initial RFA below to provide the factual basis for the certification, and as a means of seeking comment on the certification and the economic impact of the proposed rule.
An initial RFA must contain (5 U.S.C. 603):
1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for a proposed or final rule;
3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed or final rule will apply;
4. A description of the projected reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements of a proposed or final rule including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed or final rule;
6. A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed or final rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable status and which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
An RFA is not required if the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The head of NHTSA has made such a certification. The factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set forth below. Although NHTSA is not required to issue an initial RFA, we discuss below many of the issues that an initial RFA would address.
NHTSA is considering this action to improve the safety of pedestrians. In particular, this action aims to address the injury severity in regard to head injuries incurred to pedestrians as the result of being struck by a light vehicle. By setting the HIC requirement, this action ensures that passenger vehicles are designed to mitigate the risk of serious to fatal child and adult head injury in pedestrian crashes. NHTSA is also initiating this rulemaking as part of the agency's obligations under the 1998 Agreement. See section IV of this preamble.
NHTSA is proposing these changes under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30666, as well as a delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. The agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
The proposed rule would affect motor vehicle manufacturers and second-stage or final stage manufacturers. We conducted an analysis to identify if there are any such firms that exist that are small businesses. Business entities are defined as small businesses using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. One of the criteria for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.201, is the number of employees in the firm. For establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing or assembling automobiles, light- and heavy-duty trucks, buses, motor homes, and new tires the firm must have fewer than 1,500 employees to be classified as a small business, and motor vehicle body manufacturing which must have fewer than 1,000 employees.
Currently, there are at least 12 small light vehicle manufacturers in the United States.
The proposed rule does not create any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, nor does it affect any existing reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Manufacturers would have to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles with the new FMVSS No. 228. Manufacturers currently self-certify the compliance of their vehicles to a host of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, many of which are much more complex than the standard proposed by this NPRM. The burden and cost of certifying to proposed FMVSS No. 228 is relatively small. The performance test is done with an impactor without crash testing the vehicles, and multiple impacts can be performed on a single hood to assess conformance. The vehicle manufacturer is not required by the FMVSS to test every point on the hood; instead, it only must ensure that the hood will meet FMVSS No. 228 when tested by NHTSA in an agency compliance test. Thus, the small manufacturer, knowing its vehicle, can identify the part of the hood least likely to meet the standard and can focus its testing there. If that part of the hood can be made to meet the standard, the small manufacturer can determine through engineering analyses and other means that other parts of the hood can meet the standard as well. This is to say, a small entity is not directed by the standard to test in any way. Small entities can easily base their certification on simple headform testing, straightforward engineering analyses, modeling, a combination of these, or other such means to certify to the proposed standard.
Although a small entity is not required by NHTSA to test to self-certify compliance with proposed FMVSS No. 228, if they wish to perform the physical tests described in the proposed standard, they could readily contract with an outside testing laboratory to conduct the headform impact tests in the proposal. (NHTSA itself has contracted with labs for such testing in the past.) The number of tests to be performed on a particular hood to certify compliance would be at the discretion of the manufacturer. Because of the manufacturer's in-depth knowledge of its vehicle design, the symmetry of hood design and predictability of results, and the depth of engineering judgment and knowledge in this area, however, NHTSA believes it is reasonable that the number of necessary test points could be reduced to the locations with the least compliance margin. To illustrate, NHTSA in the past has assessed hood performance based on a test series of 10 impacts, at a total cost of approximately $8,000 for the 10 impacts. Because these impacts may involve more than a single hood, we would include an additional cost for hood parts, which results in an overall estimated testing cost of $10,000 for certification testing. This overall cost can then be amortized over the entire number of vehicles produced matching the test design. Thus, the amortized cost would not constitute a significant percentage of the relative cost of the vehicle. Comments are requested on these estimates.
As with large manufacturers, small manufacturers would self-certify compliance to FMVSS No. 228 by the same certification label now required for all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label is placed on the vehicle, usually in the door jamb on light vehicles. Adding FMVSS No. 228 certification to the label is expected to result in minimal impact on small entities.
NHTSA does not believe the small manufacturers listed in table XV.1 of this analysis are developing hood systems and/or related hardware for installation on the vehicles they manufacture. In today's motor vehicle market, small vehicle manufacturers, who are less able than large manufacturers to take advantage of economies of scale to lower production costs, typically produce specialized, expensive vehicles and could obtain the hoods from a supplier (a large entity). Regardless of whether small manufacturers turn to a supplier, the vehicle manufacturer would be able to certify its vehicles to FMVSS No. 228 through the use of energy-absorbing structures and strategic layout of hard engine components vis-a-vis the hood surface; designing and manufacturing a compliant hood is relatively uncomplicated.
Furthermore, there are a significant number of final-stage manufacturers and alterers (several hundred) that could be impacted by the proposed rule. These manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles from the first-stage vehicle manufacturers or complete vehicles that they alter before first sale, respectively. Many of these vehicles are van conversions, but there are a variety of vehicles affected. These final-stage manufacturers would likely meet the standard by passing on the costs of compliance by the first-stage vehicle manufacturer to the consumer. Alterers would likely refrain from modifying the hood, which allows them to pass on the compliance costs by the original manufacturer of the vehicle to the consumer. Thus, while there are a substantial number of final stage manufacturers and alterers potentially impacted by the proposed rule, we do not believe the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on the entities. Either a pass-through certification process will apply to these manufacturers, or they will do the work themselves to certify the vehicle.
NHTSA does not believe that the potential costs of any necessary hood design would have significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. In considering potential costs associated with redesigning hoods, we first note that this potential one-time cost would be spread out on a per-vehicle basis, with costs shared across model years of a given generation. Furthermore, as the majority of the small entities identified also sell vehicles in the EU,
NHTSA considers in this paragraph how such costs may impact these small entities. It is assumed that any incremental costs incurred to meet the requirements specified in the proposed rule would be passed on to consumers and, therefore, potentially impact demand. The vehicles produced by manufacturers listed in the table can roughly be grouped into three classes: (1) luxury/ultra-luxury vehicles; (2) alternative electric vehicles; and (3) modified vehicles from other manufacturers. Luxury/ultra-luxury vehicles are considered to be Veblen goods. Veblen goods are those in which demand increases as price increases. Therefore, any potential incremental costs would not have negative impacts on the demand for these particular vehicles. Additionally, as all three categories of the vehicles manufactured by these small entities are specialty vehicles, demand for these vehicles would be inelastic due to a lack of substitutes. That is, it is expected that consumers who seek out these specific vehicles would not be impacted by potential price changes as a result of manufacturers passing costs on to consumers.
We know of no Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
In addition to the requirements included in this NPRM, NHTSA considered a less stringent regulatory alternative in which the requirements specified in the proposed rule would match the E.U. interpretation of GTR 9 and a more stringent alternative in which the requirements specified in the proposed rule would be applicable to the entire Hood Top,
We have identified no meaningful alternatives that both: (1) do not rely on the establishment of a HIC requirement; and (2) are expected to achieve improvements in pedestrian safety consistent with those expected under the proposed rule. However, in recognition of manufacturing differences between large manufacturers and these specific types of small manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing to provide final-stage manufacturers and alterers an additional year of lead time for manufacturer certifications of compliance.
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule 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.”
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers
However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature (
Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that, when promulgating a new regulation, Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies any preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms, either explicitly or by reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those items; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The agency has analyzed the proposed standard and determined that there are no reporting requirements that require an OMB control number. The proposed regulatory text would require that information must be made available under the agency enforcement authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.” Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
This proposal to adopt GTR 9 is consistent with the goals of the NTTAA. This NPRM proposes to adopt a global consensus standard. The GTR was developed by a global regulatory body and is designed to increase global harmonization of differing vehicle standards. The GTR leverages the expertise of governments in developing a vehicle standard to reduce the risk of pedestrian head injury in impacts. NHTSA's consideration of GTR 9 accords with the principles of NTTAA as NHTSA's consideration of an established, proven regulation has reduced the need for NHTSA to expend significant agency resources on the same safety need addressed by GTR 9. This NPRM explains the reasons the FMVSS under consideration differs in some respects from GTR 9, and why NHTSA is considering additional changes to GTR 9 for the final rule. NHTSA will consider the comments to the NPRM and other information in drafting a final rule. If differences remain between the final rule and the GTR, the agency will explain in the final rule NHTSA's reasons for deciding such differences are warranted, consistent with the NTTAA.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2021 results in $178 million (2021 index value of 270.97/1995 index value of 152.40 = 1.78
Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1 CFR 51.5(a)), an agency must summarize in the preamble of a proposed or final rule the material it incorporates by reference and discuss the ways the material is reasonably available to interested parties or how the agency worked to make materials available to interested parties.
NHTSA proposes to incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J211-1, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,” revised August 2022 (SAE J211/1). Previous versions of this SAE standard are incorporated in 49 CFR 571.5(l)(2) through (5). The SAE J211/1 standard provides guidelines and recommendations for techniques of measurements used in impact tests to achieve uniformity in instrumentation practice and in reporting results. Signals from impact tests have to be filtered following the standard's guidelines to eliminate noise from sensor signals. Following J211/1 guidelines provides a basis for meaningful comparisons of test results from different sources. The SAE material is available for review at NHTSA and is available from SAE International.
The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9. It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is unaffected. NHTSA seeks comment on the issue of severability.
The DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us with your views.
Please see
• Your comments must be submitted in writing.
• To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.
• Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
• If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at
• Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
When submitting comments, please remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
The DOT recognizes that climate variability and change pose potential threats to U.S. transportation systems. In addition, ensuring equity and accessibility for every member of the traveling public is one of the Department's highest priorities. NHTSA requests comment on any potential climate change or equity impact of this proposed rule.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(l) * * * * *
(6) SAE Recommended Practice J211-1 AUG2022, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,” revised August 2022, into § 571.228.
S1.
S2.
S3.
S4.
S5
S5.1
(a) When tested in accordance with the procedures of S6 under the conditions of S7, subject to the limits of S5.2, when any part of a vehicle within the Child Headform Test Area or Adult Headform Test Area is impacted by the headform described in S8, HIC shall not exceed 1,000 (HIC1000).
(b) The HIC in the remaining Child or Adult Headform Test Areas shall not exceed 1,700 (HIC1700), provided that the manufacturer has identified HIC1700 Area specified by S5.5(a).
S5.2
(a)
(b)
S5.3
(a) If multiple simultaneous points of initial contact between the headform and the vehicle occur in more than one area and the areas have differing HIC requirements, the more stringent requirement applies. For example, if the initial impact occurs simultaneously within a HIC1700 Area and a HIC1000 Area, the HIC1000 requirement applies. If first contact occurs simultaneously in both an Adult Headform Test Area and a Child Headform Test Area, tests with both headforms must be performed at that location.
S5.5
(a) Manufacturers must identify HIC1700 Areas as described below, subject to S5.5(b). The HIC1700 Areas will be irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. If no HIC1700 Area is provided by the manufacturer, NHTSA will test the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area as HIC1000 Area.
(1) Manufacturers must select HIC1700 Areas based on the (x,y) coordinates of their borders referenced from the intersection of WAD1000 and the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The number of coordinates and the spacing of the coordinates are provided at the discretion of the manufacturer, but the points must be joined by straight lines in the x-y plane when marking off the test areas of an actual vehicle.
(2) In lieu of (x,y) coordinates, the manufacturer may base the HIC1700 Area on registration marks referenced from the intersection of WAD1000 and the vehicle longitudinal centerline and may use decals or templates for this purpose.
(b)(1) When a HIC1700 Area is contiguous with the HIC Unlimited Margin as specified in S6.4, the lines identified by NHTSA in accordance with this standard will supersede any conflicting coordinates provided by the manufacturer, and will act as border lines in defining the HIC1700 Area.
(2) Each HIC1700 Area border line must be contiguous. However, the total HIC1700 Area may consist of an unlimited number of contiguous areas, provided that the vehicle meets the requirement for HIC1000 Area specified in S5.2.
S5.6
(a) Under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166, upon NHTSA's request, vehicle manufacturers must make available to NHTSA information explaining the basic operational characteristics of their active hood system.
(b) Vehicles with active hoods shall meet the requirements of this standard when the hood is fully deployed. The devices to be deployed, and the minimum and maximum period of time between device deployment and impact of the headform to assure full deployment at time of impact, must be irrevocably selected by the manufacturer prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle, and provided to NHTSA upon request, under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166.
(c) All reference lines, HIC Unlimited Margins, and WAD lines specified in S6.3 must be determined on the vehicle with the hood in its undeployed state. HIC1700 areas will be identified on the vehicle with the hood in its undeployed state.
(d) The impact point of the headform is determined with the hood in an undeployed position.
S5.7
(a) Other than active devices specified in S5.6, any vehicle component (such as pop-up headlamps) that could change shape or position, and that have more than one fixed shape or position, must be stowed or retracted when determining the reference lines, margins, and WAD lines specified in S6.3.
(b) The impact point of the headform is determined when the active devices are in their stowed or retracted position.
S6
S6.1 Demonstrate compliance with S5.1 of this standard in accordance with the test procedures specified in this standard, under the conditions of S7, using the headforms described in S8. These procedures are used to identify the Leading Edge Reference Line, Side Reference Lines, Rear Reference Line, and the WAD lines (S6.3). These lines are used to identify Hood Area and subsequently the minimum requisite HIC1000 Area that must be provided. The lines are also used to identify HIC Unlimited Margins (S6.4) and to identify the Child Headform Test Area (S6.5.3) and the Adult Headform Test Area (S6.5.4). NHTSA may request information from the manufacturer in order to identify the HIC1700 areas (S5.5). The headform is launched at the hood (S6.6). The child headform must impact within the Child Headform Test Area and the adult headform must impact within the Adult Headform Test Area. When a headform strikes a HIC1000 Area, the HIC measured by the headform must not exceed 1000. When it strikes a HIC 1700 area, HIC must not exceed 1700.
S6.2 [Reserved]
S6.3
S6.3.1
S6.3.2
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Find the corner reference point of the Hood Top, as if the Leading Edge Reference Line were determined by the top end of the straight edge, rather than WAD1000. If this point does not exist, find the corner reference point of the Hood Top, as if the Leading Edge Reference Line were determined by the straight edge held at any height.
(2) Span the distance between the corner reference point of the Hood Top and the WAD1000 line with a non-stretch flexible wire held taut in the vertical longitudinal plane.
(3) Fill the discontinuity by establishing a line created by the projection of the wire horizontally rearward onto the vehicle surface.
S6.3.3
S6.3.4
(a)
(b)
(1) Where the rear reference line and the side reference line do not intersect, the rear reference line must be extended and/or modified using a semi-circular template of radius 100 ± 1 mm. The template must be made of a thin flexible sheet material that easily bends to a single curvature in any direction. The template must resist double or complex curvature where this could result in wrinkling. The template is marked with four points “A” through “D,” as shown in figure 8 (provided for illustration purpose), while the template is on a flat surface.
(2) The template must be placed on the vehicle with Corners “A” and “B” coincident with the Side Reference Line. Ensuring these two corners remain coincident with the Side Reference Line, the template must be slid progressively rearwards until the outer edge of the template makes first contact with the Rear Reference Line. Throughout the process, the template must be curved to follow, as closely as possible, the outer contour of the vehicle's hood and fender without wrinkling or folding of the template. If the first point of contact between the template and Rear Reference Line lies outside the arc identified by points “C” and “D,” the Rear Reference Line is extended and/or modified to follow the circumferential arc of the template to meet the Side Reference Line, as shown in figure 9 (provided for illustration purposes).
(3)
S6.3.5
(a)
(b)
S6.4
S6.4.1
(a) The line on the vehicle determined by connecting the points of contact between a non-stretch flexible wire measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is traversed along the Rear Reference Line. During this process, the wire remains in a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane and held taut. One end of the wire is held in contact with the Rear Reference Line and the other end is held in contact with the vehicle at points forward of the Rear Reference Line.
(b) The WAD2100 Line.
S6.4.2
(a) The line on the vehicle determined by connecting the points of contact between a non-stretch flexible wire measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is traversed along the Leading Edge Reference Line. During this process, the wire remains in a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane and held taut. One end of the wire is held in contact with the Leading Edge Reference Line and the other end is held in contact with the vehicle and points rearward of the Leading Edge Reference Line.
(b) The WAD1000 Line.
S6.4.3
S6.5
S6.5.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
S6.5.2
(a)
(b)
(c)
S6.5.3
(a)
(b)
(c)
S6.5.4
(a)
(b)
(c)
S6.6
(a)
(b)
(1) At least one impact point against which the child headform contacts must be in the Child Headform Test Area.
(2) The velocity vector of the headform center of mass at impact is in a longitudinal vertical vehicle plane at an angle of 50 ± 2° to the horizontal directed downward and rearward.
(c)
(1) At least one impact point against which the adult headform contacts must be in the Adult Headform Test Area.
(2) The velocity vector of the headform center of mass at impact is in a longitudinal vertical vehicle plane at an angle of 65 ± 2° to the horizontal directed downward and rearward.
S7
S7.1
S7.2
S7.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
S8.
(a)
(1)
(2)
S8.1
(a) The child and adult headforms are made of aluminum, are of homogenous construction and are hemispherical in shape. The headforms are schematically represented in figures 11 and 12 and detailed mechanical drawings are provided in figures 13-26. The overall diameter of the headforms are 165 ± 1 mm.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
S8.2
S8.3
(a) Three uniaxial accelerometers are installed within the headforms. One of the accelerometers has its sensitive axis perpendicular to mounting face A (see figures 11 and 12) and its seismic mass is positioned within a cylindrical tolerance field of 1 mm radius and 20 mm length. The centerline of the tolerance field runs perpendicular to the mounting face and its mid-point coincides with the spherioidal center of the headform.
(b) The remaining accelerometers have their sensitive axes perpendicular to each other and parallel to mounting face A and their seismic masses are positioned within a spherical tolerance field of 10 mm radius. The center of the tolerance field coincides with the spheroidal center of the headform.
(c) The accelerometers have the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572-S5 (figure 27). The instrumentation response value Channel Frequency Class (CFC), as defined in SAE J211 (2022), “Instrumentation for Impact Test,” (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), is CFC 1000.
S8.4
(a)
(1) for the child headform, not less than 245 g and not more than 300 g;
(2) for the adult headform, not less than 225 g and not more than 275 g.
(b)
(c)
S8.5
(a)
(b)
(2)
(i) 50 ± 2 degrees for the child headform;
(ii) 65 ± 2 degrees for the adult headform.
(3)
(i)
(ii)
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.