Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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.
In rule document 2024-19801 appearing on pages 72304 through 723095, in the issue of Thursday, September 5, 2024, make the following correction:
On page 72305, in the first column, on the 41st line, change “September 26, 2024,” to “October 7, 2024,”
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final statement of policy.
The FDIC is issuing this final Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions (Final Statement) to provide transparency on how the FDIC administers its responsibilities under the Bank Merger Act (BMA). The Final Statement takes into consideration comments received in response to the FDIC's request for comment on a proposed Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions (Proposed Statement), and this Final Statement reflects certain changes made in response to comments received. The Final Statement focuses on the scope of transactions subject to FDIC approval, the FDIC's process for evaluating merger applications, and the principles that guide the FDIC's consideration of the applicable statutory factors as set forth in the BMA.
The Final Statement supersedes the prior FDIC Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions on October 28, 2024.
George Small, Senior Examination Specialist, (347) 267-2453,
The Final Statement supersedes the prior FDIC Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions (Superseded Statement), which was last amended in 2008. Since the Superseded Statement was last revised, the BMA has been amended and significant changes have occurred in the banking industry and financial system, which has prompted the FDIC to develop this Final Statement. Following the FDIC's 2022 request for information and comment
The FDIC received 23 letters from the public in response to the Proposed Statement, including representatives of the financial services industry, trade associations, consumer groups, university professors, and members of Congress.
The Final Statement updates, strengthens, and clarifies the FDIC's policies related to the evaluation of bank merger applications. As compared to the Superseded Statement, the Final Statement includes new content; is more principles-based; addresses jurisdiction and scope; describes the FDIC's approach to each statutory factor separately; and highlights other matters and considerations such as interstate mergers and the unique aspects of applications from non-banks, operating non-insured entities, and banks that are not traditional community banks. The Final Statement highlights the FDIC's expectations relative to each statutory factor and incorporates analytical considerations for these areas.
The introduction to the Final Statement retains the Proposed Statement's content by providing a roadmap of the Final Statement's structure, which follows the BMA's core statutory provisions, and highlights the principles that guide the FDIC's evaluation of the statutory factors for a merger application.
The Final Statement generally retains with minor modifications the Proposed Statement's discussion regarding the FDIC's jurisdiction under the BMA and the scope of transactions subject to regulatory approval. Specifically, the Final Statement provides transparency and clarity on the types of transactions that are subject to the BMA, including mergers in substance and assumptions of deposits or other similar liabilities. This section highlights the overarching principle that the FDIC emphasizes a transaction's substance over its form when determining whether it constitutes a merger transaction subject to FDIC approval under the BMA.
The Final Statement retains the Proposed Statement's discussion of the FDIC's processing and adjudication of
The Final Statement retains the Proposed Statement's non-exhaustive list of circumstances that could lead to an unfavorable finding on one or more statutory factors. Further, it asserts the FDIC Board's prerogative to release a statement regarding withdrawn transactions if such a statement is considered to be in the public interest for creating transparency for the public and future applicants. The FDIC emphasizes that such statements are not to be expected in every instance, but only when warranted by the circumstances, and would be in conformance with the FDIC's obligation to protect confidential information.
Consistent with the Proposed Statement, the Final Statement is organized around a discussion of the BMA's statutory factors. The BMA prohibits approval of monopolistic merger transactions, restricts otherwise anticompetitive transactions, and requires consideration of statutory factors related to financial and managerial resources and future prospects, convenience and needs of the community to be served, combatting money laundering, and financial stability.
As emphasized in the Final Statement and throughout this Supplementary Information, the FDIC Board reserves authority to act on any merger application for which FDIC staff has not found favorably on one or more statutory factors. Such action may be either an approval or a denial. The Final Statement describes the FDIC's approach to evaluating each statutory factor. The Final Statement is intended to provide greater clarity regarding what features of merger transactions may be consistent with a favorable finding on each respective statutory factor. When a merger transaction includes these features, and the facts and circumstances of such transaction clearly weigh in favor of favorable resolution of the statutory factors, the FDIC expects such applications to be approved expeditiously under delegated authority. When the facts and circumstances do not so clearly weigh in favor of favorable resolution of the statutory factors, it is appropriate that the judgment of the FDIC Board be brought to bear on the application. In addition, it is important to note that on June 18, 2024, the FDIC Board adopted a resolution requiring full FDIC Board briefings on merger, and certain other, applications that have been outstanding for more than 270 days since the application's filing (Board Briefings Resolution).
Certain aspects of the Final Statement, such as the expectation that mergers resulting in IDIs with $50 billion or more in total assets should be the subject of public meetings and the expectation that mergers resulting in IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets be the subject of a heightened financial stability analysis are intended to position the FDIC to conduct an informed evaluation of the statutory factors for highly consequential merger proposals.
The Final Statement retains and builds upon the Proposed Statement's discussion of how the FDIC evaluates the competitive effects of a merger transaction. The Final Statement describes the FDIC's approach to considering concentrations in relevant geographic and product markets, which begins with measuring concentrations based on local deposit shares, but as necessary will take into account any appropriate data sources and analytical approaches relevant to fully assessing the competitive effects of the transaction.
The Final Statement builds upon the Proposed Statement by highlighting practices that may be particularly relevant to rural institutions. Specifically, the Final Statement acknowledges that, as circumstances warrant, the FDIC will take into account certain non-bank competitors, expressly identifying credit unions, thrifts, and Farm Credit System institutions. While the FDIC will consider such competitors when relevant, the FDIC expects that the presence of such competitors may be especially salient for mergers involving rural markets. In addition, the Final Statement recognizes that mergers in rural areas involving local community banks may result in concentrated markets and emphasizes that the FDIC will carefully balance the competitive effects of such a merger with the public interest served by the capacity of the resulting IDI to meet the convenience and needs of the community. Finally, a footnote was added to clarify that competitors in the market include, but are not limited to, credit unions, thrifts, and Farm Credit System institutions.
The FDIC continues to recognize the July 9, 2021, Executive order (E.O.) addressing competition in the American economy.
The Final Statement discusses divestitures as a means to mitigate competitive concerns before allowing the merger to be consummated. To promote the effectiveness of the divestiture(s) in mitigating anticompetitive concerns, the FDIC generally expects that the selling IDI will neither enter into non-compete agreements with any employee of the divested entity nor enforce any existing non-compete agreements with any of those entities. In addition, the Final Statement communicates the FDIC's expectation that in situations where an IDI is divesting or otherwise closing a branch in connection with the transaction, the FDIC also expects the IDI to waive any terms or conditions (
The Final Statement generally retains the Proposed Statement's emphasis on the resulting IDI reflecting sound financial performance and condition and meeting applicable capital standards. However, the Final Statement does not incorporate the Proposed Statement's assertion that the FDIC will not find favorably on the financial resources factor if the merger would result in a weaker IDI from a financial perspective. This statement was removed to avoid the suggestion that an IDI that reflects a very strong financial condition would be precluded from absorbing a weaker target. It was replaced with language affirming that a favorable finding on the financial resources factor would only be appropriate in cases where the merger results in a combined IDI that presents less financial risk than the financial risk posed by the institutions on a standalone basis. The revised comment affirms that the FDIC's analysis balances the impact of the proposed merger on financial resources particularly when the resulting IDI may initially be weaker immediately following consummation.
This language is consistent with the FDIC's historical approach to the analysis of this factor. While a resultant IDI may be weaker post-acquisition, the FDIC broadly considers the long-term financial impacts over the near-term implications of a merger. For example, when a proposed merger transaction involves an IDI in less than satisfactory condition (or experiencing potentially significant financial or managerial concerns), emphasis is placed on the capacity of the acquiring IDI to absorb the weaker IDI and address the problems or concerns identified. Furthermore, purchase accounting rules generally require an acquiring IDI to recognize the target's assets and liabilities at fair value, which often causes the resulting IDI to look weaker financially on day one, post-merger.
The Final Statement retains without change the Proposed Statement's discussion of the managerial resources factor. This discussion reflects and elaborates on the FDIC's expectation that the management of the resulting IDI possess the capabilities to administer the resulting IDI's affairs in a safe and sound manner, and to effectively implement post-merger integration plans and strategies.
The Final Statement retains without change the Proposed Statement's discussion of the future prospects statutory factor. The discussion reflects and elaborates upon the FDIC's expectation that the resulting IDI will operate in a safe and sound manner on a sustained basis following consummation of the merger.
The Final Statement retains with slight modifications the Proposed Statement's discussion of the statutory factor related to the convenience and needs of the community to be served. Notably, the Final Statement communicates and elaborates upon the FDIC's expectation that a merger between IDIs
Absent such a demonstration, the FDIC Board reserves the authority to evaluate and act upon the merger by taking into account all of the facts and circumstances of the transaction in the context of the statutory factors.
In addition, the Final Statement communicates the FDIC's expectation to hold public hearings for mergers resulting in IDIs that have $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets. Public input is an essential part of the FDIC's consideration of every merger transaction. The primary means of receiving public input is through the statutorily mandated public comment process, but the Final Statement reflects the FDIC's policy that an additional forum for public input for the most consequential merger transactions would be appropriate.
The Final Statement retains without change the Proposed Statement's discussion of the financial stability factor. The discussion explains that the FDIC evaluates the financial stability factor with respect to the size of the entities involved in the transaction, the availability of substitute providers for any critical products or services to be offered by the resulting IDI, the resulting IDI's degree of interconnectedness with the U.S. banking or financial system, the extent to which the resulting IDI contributes to the U.S. banking or financial system's complexity, and the extent of the resulting IDI's cross-border activities.
The Final Statement emphasizes that size alone is not dispositive for determining the risk to the U.S. banking or financial system's stability, but nonetheless recognizes that transactions that result in a large IDI are more likely
The Final Statement retains without change the Proposed Statement's discussion regarding the statutory factor related to the effectiveness in combatting money laundering. The Final Statement communicates and elaborates upon the FDIC's expectation that approved merger transactions will result in IDIs with effective programs to combat money laundering and counter the financing of terrorism.
The Final Statement retains the Proposed Statement's discussion of other matters and considerations, which alerts the public to the added requirements that apply to interstate transactions, as well as the FDIC's approach to applications involving non-banks or banks that are not traditional community banks, and applications involving operating non-insured entities.
Many commenters recommended some type of revision or alteration with respect to the discussion of how the FDIC analyzes the statutory factors, with particular emphasis on competitive effects, convenience and needs of the community, and risk to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system. Additionally, many commenters provided feedback or recommendations for process changes that are outside the scope of what was initially proposed. For example, multiple commenters discussed a need to increase the scrutiny applied to acquisitions of banks by nonbanks such as credit unions. Other items suggested include:
• adopting a separate review framework for mergers involving community banks and nonbank acquirers;
• ending expedited reviews/processing of bank merger applications;
• adopting metrics and benchmarks for a streamlined application and an expedited review for transactions between small IDIs that do not raise significant supervisory or financial stability concerns and where no adverse public comments have been filed;
• disallowing banks with over 10 percent of U.S. deposits from buying failing banks unless there are no other buyers;
• developing an interagency statement of policy; and
• consulting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on all merger applications.
Some commenters that were largely supportive of aspects of the Proposed Statement recommended further refinements or additional elements for consideration. For example, one such commenter suggested that a merger must enhance the resulting IDI's ability to serve the public for it to warrant approval. However, the same commenter also suggested including a statement that the FDIC would add a condition to approval orders restricting the ability of IDIs to close branches beyond those identified for closing in the application. Some commenters were broadly opposed to certain aspects of the Proposed Statement. These commenters argued that the FDIC's current framework for reviewing proposed merger transactions was sound and warned of negative consequences from the proposed revisions.
Some commenters suggested that the Proposed Statement's jurisdiction and scope section exceeds the FDIC's statutory authority, contending that statements regarding the FDIC's jurisdiction are overly broad as they suggest that applications are necessary for various types of transactions that are not true mergers. The BMA expressly subjects a wide range of transactions to regulatory approval, and the Final Statement generally retains the Proposed Statement's approach to jurisdiction and scope, which reflects statutory requirements and the FDIC's longstanding practice. With respect to asset acquisitions that do not involve deposits or similar liabilities, the Final Statement maintains that the FDIC considers transactions to be mergers in substance when a target would no longer compete in the market, regardless of whether the target plans to liquidate immediately after consummating the transaction. Similar to the Proposed Statement, the Final Statement offers as an example of a substantive merger a transaction in which “an IDI absorbs all (or substantially all) of a target entity's assets and the target entity dissolves (or otherwise ceases to engage in the acquired lines of business such that the target is no longer a viable competitor).”
In response to the Proposed Statement, it was suggested that the FDIC should assert that asset acquisitions that would not qualify as
Although the scope of transactions subject to the BMA is broad and there is no
Multiple commenters requested the adoption of specific approval metrics and benchmarks and the removal of general terms. One commenter requested that the Final Statement include benchmarks for a streamlined application and expedited review for transactions between small IDIs that do not raise significant supervisory concerns and where no adverse public comments have been filed. Several commenters requested a
No specific bright lines or performance thresholds were included in the Final Statement to retain flexibility to evaluate the facts and circumstances of each individual application, and no
Multiple commenters noted that the Final Statement should expressly authorize conditions to be used to find favorably on a statutory factor. The Final Statement does not state that conditions can be used to find favorably on a statutory factor that otherwise presents material concerns. However, the FDIC may impose targeted conditions to mitigate specific risks. Conditions are not a substitute for the resolution of, and do not in and of themselves favorably resolve, an applicable statutory factor. As noted in the Final Statement, the imposition of conditions will be taken into account as part of the FDIC's consideration of the merger application, but will not necessarily lead to the favorable resolution of any statutory factor where the facts and circumstances are otherwise unfavorable. This is consistent with the FDIC's long-standing applications processing policy.
Commenters suggested that the process for the FDIC Board to post a statement about a withdrawn application be eliminated. Further, commenters indicated that the FDIC should confirm that detailed nonpublic information provided in merger applications would remain confidential. The Final Statement retains the FDIC Board's discretion to release a statement regarding the concerns with a withdrawn application if such a statement is considered to be in the public interest for purposes of creating transparency for the public and future applicants. Publishing such a statement provides the industry with insights and understanding of what features of a proposal may be inconsistent with approval. If such a statement is not published, the industry and consumers would not understand the rationale for the withdrawal and the issues/concerns identified during the review process. The publication of such a statement is not expected for most transactions and the FDIC intends that any such statement would be fully consistent with the confidentiality requirements of applicable laws and regulations and would not disclose confidential business information of applicants.
Commenters stated that pre-consummation divestitures would add significant delay and complexity to an already lengthy and costly merger process. The Final Statement retains the language as presented. Any potential divestitures would follow regulatory approval. Divestitures, when required, may be included as a condition that must be addressed prior to consummation of the merger. Such actions would not delay the merger application submission, review, and approval processes; as such, the length of time for regulatory review and adjudication is not expected to change.
Multiple commenters suggested revisions to the competitive effects analysis. Several commenters raised concerns with credit union acquisitions of IDIs and requested a special analysis of the competitive impacts of such transactions. It was also suggested that credit union competition should be given a multiplier when used as part of the competitive analysis. No changes were made to the Final Statement to address the competitive effects analysis of credit union acquisitions of IDIs; as such, transactions are subject to the same statutory factors. When assessing the competitive effects, the FDIC considers all relevant market participants; however, no multiplier is used to increase the credit union impact on the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI),
Other commenters noted that the Final Statement should include specific metrics for transactions to be considered anti-competitive, including specific HHI thresholds that would be consistent with approval. Other commenters requested to preserve the current thresholds since it provides a level of certainty by which mergers are presumed not to raise competitive concerns. Commenters also suggested that the Final Statement should use a higher HHI threshold in rural markets and that use of the Federal Reserve Board's banking markets should be revisited. The Final Statement does not include specific HHI metrics or benchmarks at this time. With respect to the Federal Reserve Board's banking markets, the FDIC will employ a geographic market definition that is appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the application. The evaluative considerations for competitive effects analysis are described in the Final Statement, and HHI calculations are described in the Applications Procedures Manual, section 4, Mergers. Section 4 is currently being revised to reflect the Final Statement.
With respect to the evaluation of competition in rural markets, the Final Statement emphasizes the FDIC's statutory obligation to weigh any potential anticompetitive effects of a merger against the convenience and needs of the community to be served, and that it is possible for consideration of convenience and needs to outweigh a concern with potential anticompetitive effects. The FDIC recognizes that in rural communities, typical concentration measures such as HHI based purely on IDI deposit concentrations might be incomplete,
A few commenters indicated that the competitive effects analysis should be conducted on a county-level and capture county-level demographics such as median income levels or percentage of people of color or low-to-moderate income people. These comments suggested that such analysis should consider additional divestitures or mandate commitments to increase lending and banking services. It was also suggested that concentrations should be measured nationally. As stated in the Final Statement, the FDIC generally employs a framework for evaluating competitive effects involving a transaction between IDIs with traditional community banking operations within their local geographic markets. However, the FDIC will tailor its evaluation to consider the size and competitive effects of the resulting IDI. Further, the Final Statement notes that the FDIC identifies all relevant geographic markets (local, regional, and national) based on the geographic areas in which the merging entities operate and in which customers may practically turn to competitors for alternative products and services. If the relevant geographic market is shown to be at the county level, the county will be the focus of the analysis; if the relevant market is wider, the assessment will reflect that area. With respect to divestitures and commitments to increase services, such determinations are made depending on the facts and circumstances of the application.
A couple of commenters urged the FDIC to de-emphasize local deposit concentration as a key criterion for deciding mergers. Other commenters disagreed saying evaluating the competitive effects of mergers based on product or consumer sector concentrations introduces unpredictability with unclear benefits. It was suggested that evidence from traffic patterns could also be evaluated as a means to assess customer use of services in wider areas. As noted in the Final Statement, deposit concentration is an initial proxy for commercial banking products and services. The FDIC will consider concentrations beyond those based on deposits. As appropriate, the FDIC may consider concentrations in any specific products or customer segments, such as, for example, the volume of small business or residential loan originations or activities requiring specialized expertise. Additionally, the Final Statement confirms that, when relevant, the analysis may incorporate other products offered by the merging entities with consideration given to whether consumers retain meaningful choices.
Some commenters indicated that the FDIC should not disfavor non-compete agreements, and others indicated that non-compete clauses for workers should be eliminated in all mergers. Consistent with current practice, the Final Statement retains the language as proposed, which states that the FDIC will generally not view favorably situations where the selling institution enters into non-compete agreements with any employee of the divested entity or seeks to enforce any existing non-compete agreements with any of those entities.
Two commenters noted that a
Many commenters requested that the following statement in the proposed Statement be removed: “[t]he FDIC will not find favorably on the financial resources factor if the merger would result in a weaker IDI from an overall financial perspective.” Commenters contended that the statement appears to preclude the acquisition of weaker institutions during periods of economic distress. Commenters noted that the FDIC should clarify or revise its position regarding how it will evaluate a merger resulting in a weaker IDI from an overall financial perspective. It was also suggested that the FDIC could dispel concerns regarding how it will evaluate such mergers by noting it will balance the risks posed by the resulting IDI in light of the risks of denying a merger.
The statement that “[t]he FDIC will not find favorably on the financial resources factor if the merger would result in a weaker IDI from an overall financial perspective” has been removed from the Final Statement. Inclusion of such language created confusion regarding the acquisition of a weaker target by a stronger acquirer with adequate resources to absorb and integrate the target. On balance, the FDIC determined that retention of the statement could be viewed as an indication that certain transactions would be precluded from receiving approval. The language was replaced with a statement that a favorable finding on the financial resources factor would be appropriate only in cases where the merger results in a combined IDI that presents less financial risk than the financial risk posed by the institutions on a standalone basis.
With respect to the evaluation of the financial and managerial resources, commenters noted that outstanding or pending matters that can be resolved in the normal supervisory course should not bar an institution from pursuing merger transactions. The Final Statement affirms that the assessment of managerial resources includes the responsiveness to issues or supervisory recommendations raised by regulators or auditors as well as any existing or pending enforcement actions. Additionally, the Final Statement discusses the FDIC's expectation that a resulting IDI will have the managerial and operational capacity, and devote adequate resources, to ensure full and timely compliance with any outstanding corrective programs or supervisory recommendations. The FDIC does not view the existence of outstanding or pending enforcement actions as a bar to the pursuit of a merger.
Some commenters noted that the Final Statement should ensure that IDIs have more equity capital funding as a prerequisite for mergers (a 10 percent tier 1 leverage ratio was suggested). The Final Statement does not identify a specific capital threshold that would facilitate merger approvals; however, it does state that a critical component of the analysis of financial resources is the resultant IDI's ability to meet applicable capital standards (including maintenance of appropriate allowances for loan or credit losses). The Final Statement affirms that, depending on the anticipated risk profile of the resulting IDI, the FDIC may impose, as a non-standard condition, capital requirements that are higher than applicable capital standards. However, no specific threshold is included to retain flexibility to assess the facts and circumstances of a particular transaction.
Commenters noted that management should demonstrate the prioritization of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their practices, products, and services. They recommended that the FDIC take into consideration data from Equal Employment Opportunity reports and
A commenter suggested that IDIs with poor records of compliance with climate-related goals should not be allowed to merge. Discussion of climate-related goals has not been added to the Final Statement. However, if the management, compliance rating, and/or risk profile of the merging parties were adversely impacted by climate change challenges, the ability of the resulting IDI's management team to ameliorate and address the climate-related risks may be considered in the context of the applicable statutory factors.
Multiple commenters recommended revisions to the discussion of the FDIC's analysis of the convenience and needs of the community to be served. Multiple commenters asserted that there is no statutory requirement that the resulting IDI should better meet the convenience and needs of the community. These commenters stated that such an expectation is unnecessary and leaves the matter of determining whether it does so primarily at the discretion of the FDIC. Other commenters expressed support for this expectation, indicating that increased public benefit is of paramount importance. The Final Statement generally retains the approach as proposed, consistent with congressional intent
The Final Statement includes examples as to how the FDIC anticipates the resulting IDI could meet this expectation. For example, an applicant may demonstrate how the transaction will benefit the public through higher lending limits, greater access to existing products and services, introduction of new or expanded products or services, reduced prices and fees, increased convenience in utilizing the credit and banking services and facilities of the resulting IDI, or other means. While not explicitly stated, the evaluation also considers the implications if the transaction was not approved and how that decision affects the convenience and needs of the community. The expectation for a favorable finding on this factor is for the community to gain from the transaction post-consummation. Applications that project reduced or diminished banking services will generally result in unfavorable findings on this factor. This approach is consistent with current policy and is intended to clarify the FDIC's approach to the evaluation of this statutory factor.
Commenters requested that the Final Statement clarify that only public comments that meet a level of significance would lead to additional FDIC review. One commenter suggested that the FDIC should implement a vetting procedure and criteria for submitting a comment and not automatically consider all comments as warranting the same consideration. Commenters also stated that Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) protests that are unsubstantiated from factual or legal perspectives (including, for example, form protests) should not be considered in determining whether a public hearing will be held.
As noted in § 303.2 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, adverse comment(s) shall not include any other comment that is determined to be frivolous (for example, a non-substantive comment submitted primarily as a means of delaying action on the filing). While the Final Statement affirms that the FDIC will review and evaluate any public comments received in accordance with § 303.9 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, consideration is not given to frivolous letters or statements. The FDIC will consider substantive public comments received regarding the ability of the applicant to meet the convenience and needs of the community to be served and will provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to any comment that is determined to be a CRA protest.
Commenters were mixed on the need for hearings. Some commenters agreed that hearings should be conducted when there are a significant number of CRA protests or the resulting IDI has over $50 billion in total assets; others disagreed with using $50 billion in total assets as a level for which hearings will be conducted. One letter suggested that any merger protest should trigger a public hearing or meeting. Finally, clarification was sought regarding the process for requesting a public hearing, the appropriate channels, and specific contacts in the process.
The Final Statement retains the expectation that mergers resulting in an IDI with over $50 billion in total assets will be the subject of hearings; however, the FDIC historically has, and will continue to, conduct hearings for transactions under this level when deemed appropriate. Such a determination will depend on the facts and circumstances of the proposed merger. In making such a determination, the FDIC would consider the risk profile of the resultant IDI, the volume and nature of protest letters, and the likely prospective impact to the convenience and needs of the community to be served. With regard to the process for conducting public hearings, such guidelines are enumerated in § 303.10 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations. When the application is filed, the publication document indicates the appropriate channel to provide comments by listing the address of the appropriate FDIC office where comments may be sent. Such information provides the public with initial contacts to discuss concerns with the filing that may precipitate public hearings.
A few commenters stated that the FDIC should clarify what is meant by a “significant number” of CRA protests. The Final Statement does not state a specific number of CRA protests to be considered “significant”; rather, the FDIC considers all adverse comments from the public related to a pending filing when determining if the comment is deemed to rise to the level of a protest. Frivolous letters are not included. Additionally, the receipt of only one or two CRA protest letters may not be considered significant enough to lead to a public hearing; however, the FDIC retains the ability to hold a hearing in these instances. The decision to hold such hearings depends on issues raised during the comment period and the significance of the merger transaction to the public interest, banking industry, and communities affected.
One commenter stated that the FDIC should use the most recent CRA exam, with the qualification that if the applicant has had a less than Satisfactory rating in any of the last three exams, the merger should not be approved until remediation plans are in
A commenter requested that the FDIC extend comment periods for community members to participate in the process from 30 days to 60 days and stated that clarity is needed around comment letter deadlines, particularly if comment letters received after the deadline are used to inform bank merger decisions. The comment period and deadlines for submitting comment letters are codified in § 303.65 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations and have not been changed.
Some commenters requested that clear points of contact should be listed on regulatory and applicant websites, along with email addresses and phone numbers, to facilitate requests for the public file and/or to engage bank applicants and the regulator. The FDIC's current website includes detailed instructions for the public to both file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, as well as to request the public portion of applications subject to the CRA.
A couple of commenters stated that approval orders should address comments submitted by the public, the FDIC should summarize communications with the applicant for the public record, and there should be an administrative appeals process for community groups to challenge approvals that are inconsistent with an agency's own procedures. The regulations governing the processes for filing comment letters and conducting public hearings have not changed and the Final Statement affirms the FDIC's approach to these matters.
One commenter suggested that the FDIC should require public statements, public plans, or community benefit agreements (CBAs), and regulators should examine for compliance with commitments during future examinations. Other commenters disagreed with requiring and enforcing CBAs, stating that if the FDIC required CBAs, then the FDIC must enforce the requirements of the agreements, which is inconsistent with current practice. Further, there is no statutory basis for requiring and enforcing CBAs. The Final Statement does not address CBAs, which are private agreements between merger parties and community groups. The FDIC does not require CBAs or enforce their requirements. The Final Statement retains language that claims and commitments made to the FDIC may be included in the order and enforced post-merger through its ongoing supervision.
Commenters were mixed on having applicants provide a three-year plan regarding branch actions. Commenters who concurred with this approach noted that applicants should be required to describe the impact branch closures will have on the job, credit, and reinvestment needs of local communities. Commenters who disagreed with this approach indicated that the FDIC should not force IDIs to hardwire plans with respect to branch actions, thus limiting their flexibility to address changing circumstances. Another commenter requested that closings should be prohibited during the ensuing three years. One commenter noted that a focus on proposed branch closures fails to consider the numerous innovations in customer service channels in recent decades.
The Final Statement affirms the expectation for applicants to provide three years of information regarding projected branch actions consistent with current practice. Retaining this guidance clarifies the expectations for branch retention, expansion, closing, or consolidation and provides transparency on the timeframes that the FDIC will evaluate, consistent with its current practices. It also provides transparency to the industry on how the FDIC considers proposed changes to the physical locations of branches.
Other commenters indicated that the evaluation of convenience and needs of the community should not consider job losses. The FDIC agrees with commenters that the provision about the impact of future branch closings on the loss of job employment opportunities in the local market area may depend on factors not readily predictable at the time of a merger transaction. However, the impact of any proposed merger on employment opportunities is relevant to understanding how the transaction will serve the convenience and needs of the community. Accordingly, the Final Statement will request that applicants quantify or provide information regarding job losses to the extent those are known or knowable.
Commenters provided differing views with respect to language indicating that a transaction that would result in an IDI with $100 billion or more in assets would be subject to additional scrutiny in connection with evaluating its impact on U.S. financial stability. One commenter indicated this level is too low, as a merger resulting in an IDI having $100 billion of assets, would involve only 0.4 percent of industry assets, and its effects on industry concentration would be minor. This commenter pointed out that identifying $100 billion in total assets as the basis for additional scrutiny protects the very largest institutions from regional banks gaining scale and competing with them more directly. Conversely, another commenter stated the $100 billion benchmark for potential financial stability concerns is appropriate and should be retained; however, the commenter argued that the focus should be on domestic financial stability and not whether the resulting IDI would be a globally systemically important bank. Yet another commenter indicated that an asset size below $100 billion should be identified as the benchmark above which additional scrutiny should be applied to transactions. Commenters also requested that the FDIC clarify that mergers resulting in an IDI over $100 billion in total assets will not result in a presumptive denial, as well as what kind of “additional scrutiny” the FDIC may apply to a transaction that would result in an IDI with $100 billion or more in total assets. One commenter suggested that the FDIC should consult with the DOJ when a transaction results in an IDI with more than $100 billion in assets to determine whether the benefits of the merger outweigh the risk that the IDI will pose systemic risk or be “too big to fail.” Additionally, it was suggested that concerns about mergers creating larger banks that might fail should be counterbalanced by the recognition that larger banks can better diversify across regions than smaller banks. Finally, it was noted that the financial stability considerations relate primarily to how a merger may increase risk to financial stability. It was recommended that the Final Statement address ways in which a merger could decrease risk to financial stability by fostering competition with the largest banks or improving the financial condition of a weaker bank.
The Final Statement retains the expectation that transactions resulting in an IDI with $100 billion in total assets or more would be subject to additional scrutiny. This is not a threshold for a presumptive denial. Identifying thresholds for transactions that do not present concern is inconsistent with the FDIC's practice of evaluating all filings based on their specific facts and circumstances.
The term “additional scrutiny” signals to the industry and consumers that a proposed transaction that results in an IDI with over $100 billion in assets will likely engender additional information requests, more frequent discussions and correspondence with application parties, and supplementary meetings and discussions with regulators and community groups. Such heightened analysis also provides the FDIC with additional information/data to evaluate. While the filing is still subject to the same statutory factors as all merger applications, and there are no additional elements to achieve regulatory approval, the timeline for a review of these filings may be extended compared to other types of filings.
Commenters were mixed on the consideration of the prudential regulatory framework when assessing financial stability. One commenter stated the framework is inadequate to prevent financial instability, as evidenced by the IDI failures that occurred in 2023. Another commenter suggested that the FDIC should leverage the quarterly systemic risk data that firms with greater than $100 billion in assets file on Form FR Y-15 to analyze the resulting firm's operations. One commenter suggested that the FDIC articulate how the existing framework does not address financial stability concerns. Another commenter advised that it is not appropriate to impose resolution-planning requirements via the Final Statement, which should be subject to notice and comment rulemaking. A commenter stated that the FDIC must assess and consider the resolvability of the resulting IDI when reviewing a merger transaction. This commenter also noted that the Final Statement should make it clear that the FDIC will consider the resulting the regulatory framework when assessing financial stability risk.
The Final Statement states that the FDIC will evaluate any additional elements that may affect the risk to the U.S. banking or financial system's stability. This may include the resulting IDI's regulatory framework; however, the framework alone would not result in a favorable finding on this factor when other financial stability concerns exist. The framework is merely one aspect in the evaluation of this statutory factor, and the FDIC recognizes the limitations in relying exclusively on the regulatory framework as a mechanism to limit financial stability risks.
Some commenters requested the inclusion of specific metrics to identify what transactions would not present financial stability concerns. Commenters also suggested that the Final Statement include a presumption that
Only one comment letter addressed the effectiveness of each IDI involved in the proposed merger transaction in combating money-laundering activities. This commenter stated that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) should be consulted regarding the effectiveness of efforts to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activity. Further, the commenter suggested that FDIC should require banks to submit a pro-forma anti-money laundering risk assessment with the merger application and require institutions to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment within a reasonable time after a merger is completed. No changes were made to the Final Statement with respect to these items. The FDIC works collaboratively with FinCEN, but has sufficient information available to independently assess the effectiveness of efforts to combat money laundering and counter terrorist financing. For applicants that have less than satisfactory anti-money laundering programs, the FDIC may request a risk assessment to be conducted after consummation as a non-standard condition.
Commenters also provided suggestions and recommendations outside of the Final Statement. Several commenters requested that the FDIC review, to the extent possible, the effects of past mergers to evaluate the appropriateness of any revised merger guidelines. Another commenter requested that the FDIC clarify that it is unlikely to approve a merger when the applicant has (1) recently switched its charter in anticipation of filing a merger application, or (2) has restructured the transaction after it (or its merger partner) previously submitted a merger application to a different banking agency. A commenter suggested that the FDIC should not approve mergers by IDIs that switched regulators in the last five years before the merger.
A couple of commenters requested that the FDIC increase the scrutiny applied to acquisitions of IDIs by nonbanks such as credit unions. Such transactions may have a negative impact on State and local government budgets and communities, which could necessitate an increase in taxes. One commenter stated that it is entirely inappropriate for Federal bank regulators, in absence of a specific statutory grant of authority, to arrogate legislative power to consider, let alone approve such transactions. The Final Statement does not address the evaluation of credit union acquisitions of IDIs specifically; however, it does indicate that a credit union may need to provide additional information to enable the FDIC to evaluate the convenience and needs statutory factor, as credit unions are not subject to the CRA.
One commenter stated that the FDIC should adopt a separate review framework for mergers involving community banks and nonbank acquirers to ensure the maintenance of existing community development lending and investments. One commenter stated that it would be illustrative for the FDIC to publish information regarding the number of rounds of staff review of an application, the dynamic between regional and Washington office staffs, the number of subsequent questions, or any estimated time under which action is taken on an application. The letter urges the FDIC to provide more detailed and accurate timing guidance in the FDIC's Applications Procedures Manual. Finally, one commenter requested that the FDIC explain the weight given to each statutory factor; however, the FDIC does not assign specific weights to the statutory factors.
Section 4 of the FDIC's Applications Procedures Manual will be revised and issued subsequent to the publication of the Final Statement. The revised section 4 addresses the review process and the dynamic between regional and Washington office staffs, and the prospective timeframes for processing.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
The Final Statement does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information under the PRA. Therefore, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.
The text of the Final Statement follows:
This statement of policy (SOP) communicates the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) expectations and views regarding applications filed pursuant to section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), which is referred to herein as the Bank Merger Act (BMA). The SOP reflects the FDIC's interpretations of the BMA and its implementing regulations. The structure of the SOP follows the BMA's core statutory provisions, and its content highlights the principles that guide the FDIC's evaluation of the statutory factors for a merger application.
The BMA prohibits an insured depository institution (IDI) from engaging in a merger transaction without regulatory approval. It identifies the types of undertakings that constitute “merger transactions” and outlines which of the three Federal banking agencies is the “responsible agency” for acting on a given merger application.
The BMA generally prohibits the responsible agency from approving a monopolistic or otherwise anticompetitive merger transaction.
The FDIC is one of three Federal banking agencies with responsibility for evaluating transactions subject to the BMA. The FDIC has jurisdiction to act on merger applications that involve an IDI and any non-insured entity,
For BMA purposes, the FDIC considers transactions to be mergers in substance when a target would no longer compete in the market, regardless of whether the target plans to liquidate immediately after consummating the transaction. An example of a transaction that is a merger in substance, and therefore subject to the BMA, is when an IDI absorbs all (or substantially all) of a target entity's assets and the target entity dissolves (or otherwise ceases to engage in the acquired lines of business such that the target is no longer a viable competitor).
An FDIC-supervised IDI's assumption of a deposit from another IDI, or any IDI's assumption of a deposit from a non-insured entity, is likewise subject to FDIC approval even in the absence of an express agreement for a direct assumption. Similarly, a transfer of deposits from any IDI to a non-insured entity is subject to FDIC approval.
Merger and other corporate transactions may be conducted through a single transaction or through a series of related transactions that each require an application, such as transactions effected through interim institutions. In all cases, the FDIC will evaluate the substance of all of the facts and circumstances of the transaction and any related transactions, identify which aspects of the transaction(s) are subject to FDIC approval, and fully evaluate the applicable statutory factors in a manner that is appropriate to each transaction.
The FDIC encourages prospective applicants to engage in a pre-filing process to discuss regulatory expectations. It is particularly important for the application to be substantially complete when initially filed.
Public feedback is an important component of the FDIC's review of a merger application. Section 18(c)(3) of the FDI Act requires that public notice of the proposed merger transaction be published in an approved form and at appropriate intervals in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation. A list of pending merger applications subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is available on the FDIC's website using the Applications in Process Subject to the CRA Report Selection Options.
Section 18(c)(4) of the FDI Act requires the FDIC to request a competitive factors report from the Attorney General of the United States for any merger transaction between an IDI and a non-affiliated entity, unless the FDIC finds that it must act immediately in order to prevent the probable failure of an IDI involved in the transaction.
Generally, if all statutory factors are favorably resolved, and all other regulatory requirements are satisfied, the FDIC will approve the merger application. Approvals will be subject to the standard conditions detailed in § 303.2(bb) of the FDIC Rules and Regulations and any non-standard conditions deemed appropriate by the FDIC. Generally, the imposition of conditions will be taken into account as part of the FDIC's consideration of the merger application, but will not necessarily lead to the favorable resolution of any statutory factor where the facts and circumstances are otherwise unfavorable. The Order and Basis (Order) will be posted to the FDIC's public web page. The Order will address all statutory factors, as well as summarize information regarding any CRA protests. The FDIC will summarize the related analysis and conclusions, and in the cases of approval, will include any conditions imposed in conjunction with the approval.
The FDIC's publicly available Delegations of Authority set forth criteria that must be satisfied in order for staff in the FDIC Regional Offices or Washington Office to approve a merger application.
Generally, applications which include one or more of the following circumstances will present significant concerns and will likely result in unfavorable findings with regard to one or more statutory factors:
• Non-compliance with applicable Federal or State statutes, rules, or regulations (this includes, for example, transactions that would exceed the 10 percent nationwide deposit limit, as well as both issued and pending enforcement actions);
• Unsafe or unsound condition relating to the existing merger parties or the resulting IDI;
• Less than satisfactory examination ratings, including for any specialty areas (
• Significant concerns regarding financial performance or condition, risk profile, or future prospects;
• Inadequate management, including significant turnover, weak or poor corporate governance, or lax oversight and administration; or
• Incomplete, unsustainable, unrealistic or unsupported projections, analyses, and/or assumptions.
Additionally, the FDIC may not be able to find favorably on any given statutory factor (and the application as a whole) if there are unresolved deficiencies, issues, or concerns (including with respect to any public comments). A lack of sustained performance under corrective programs would also be inconsistent with a favorable finding on one or more statutory factors, particularly when the transaction implicates the areas that are the subject of the corrective program. Further, the inability or unwillingness of the applicant to agree to proposed conditions or execute written agreements, if deemed necessary, would result in unfavorable findings and would require action by the FDIC Board on the application.
If FDIC staff finds unfavorably on one or more statutory factors based on the application review, staff generally will recommend denial of the application. At the FDIC's discretion, applicants may be offered the opportunity to withdraw the filing. If an applicant withdraws their filing, the FDIC Board may release a statement regarding the concerns with the transaction if such a statement is considered to be in the public interest for purposes of creating transparency for the public and future applicants.
Merger applications are evaluated under the framework of statutory factors as described in the BMA. Generally, the BMA prohibits approval of monopolistic or otherwise anticompetitive transactions; and requires the responsible agency to consider specific statutory factors related to financial and
The FDIC strives to ensure that resulting IDIs continue as participants in a competitive environment. Section 18(c)(5) of the BMA prohibits the FDIC from approving a merger transaction that would result in a monopoly or would be in furtherance of an attempt to monopolize the business of banking in any part of the U.S. The BMA also prohibits the FDIC from approving a merger transaction that may substantially lessen competition in any section of the country, unless the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.
The FDIC will evaluate the competitive effects of a proposed merger in a manner that is most relevant to each transaction. Consistent with the majority of merger transactions typically presented to the FDIC, the FDIC generally employs a framework for evaluating competitive effects involving a transaction between IDIs with traditional community banking operations within their local geographic markets. However, the FDIC will tailor its evaluation to consider the size and competitive effects of the resulting IDI. Additionally, the FDIC will consider all relevant market participants. For example, the FDIC may include any other financial service providers that the FDIC views as competitive with the merging entities, including providers located outside the geographic market when it is evident that such providers materially influence the market.
In assessing competitive effects, the FDIC considers concentrations with respect to both geographic and product markets. The FDIC identifies all relevant geographic markets (local, regional, and national) based on the areas in which the merging entities operate and in which customers may practically turn to competitors for alternative products and services.
In addition, the FDIC will consider concentrations beyond those based on deposits. As appropriate, the FDIC may consider concentrations in any specific products or customer segments, such as, for example, the volume of small business or residential loan originations or activities requiring specialized expertise. Additionally, when relevant, the analysis may incorporate other products offered by the merging entities, and will consider whether consumers retain meaningful choices. In its analysis, the FDIC will evaluate a market with a scope that is appropriate to the products or services offered or planned. Moreover, the FDIC will consider the emergence of new competitors for products or services in relevant markets; and the expansion of products and services offered by the merging entities and other market participants. Finally, as necessary or appropriate, the FDIC will consider other products or services and additional methods of assessing the competitive nature of markets. In particular, the FDIC may consider information on the pricing of products and services to assess the competitive effects of a proposed merger when practicable and relevant.
The FDIC will continue to undertake an independent analysis of the competitive factors associated with a given merger transaction. The FDIC's analysis is guided by the principles outlined above, but is also informed by the Department of Justice's approach to evaluating competitive effects. As noted above, the FDIC Board reserves authority to act on any application for which the Attorney General has not notified the FDIC that the proposed transaction would not have a significantly adverse effect on competition. In such cases, applicants would need to demonstrate that the anticompetitive effects of the merger transaction would be outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.
The FDIC may require divestitures of business lines, branches, or portions thereof as a means to mitigate competitive concerns before allowing the merger to be consummated. In such cases, the FDIC generally expects that the selling IDI will neither enter into non-compete agreements with any employee of the divested entity nor enforce any existing non-compete agreements with any of those entities. Additionally, the FDIC may request an IDI divesting or otherwise closing a branch in connection with the transaction to waive any terms or conditions that preclude the ability of other IDIs to lease or purchase the property.
The BMA prohibits approval of an interstate merger that results in an IDI (and its affiliates) controlling more than 10 percent of the total deposits of IDIs in the U.S.
The BMA requires the responsible agency to consider the financial resources of the existing and proposed entities involved in a merger
A critical component of the analysis of financial resources is the resultant IDI's ability to meet applicable capital standards (including maintenance of appropriate allowances for loan or credit losses). Depending on the anticipated risk profile of the resulting IDI, the FDIC may impose, as a non-standard condition, capital requirements that are higher than applicable capital standards.
The FDIC will also consider the current and projected financial impact of any related entities on the IDI, including the parent organization and any key affiliates. For each relevant entity, the FDIC will consider, among other items, the size and scope of operations, capital position, quality of assets, overall financial performance and condition, compliance and regulatory history, primary revenue and expense sources, and funding strategies.
The BMA requires the responsible agency to consider the managerial resources of the existing and proposed entities involved in a merger transaction.
The capability of management to identify, measure, monitor, and control risks and ensure a safe and sound operation in compliance with applicable laws and regulations is included in the evaluation of managerial resources. The FDIC will consider the background and experience of each member of management relative to the size, complexity, and risk profile of the resulting IDI, including the managerial performance and supervisory record of affiliates and subsidiaries.
The FDIC will review supervisory assessments of management made by the relevant regulatory authorities, as well as the nature and extent of organizational relationships. The FDIC will also evaluate the effect of such relationships on the IDI, as well as the operating history, risk management, and control environment of the parent organization. Inherent in these considerations are the condition, performance, risk profile, and prospects of the organization as a whole, as well as the consistency of the proposed merger with the resulting IDI's strategic (or business) plan.
The FDIC will assess each IDI's record of compliance with respect to consumer protection, fair lending, and other relevant consumer laws and regulations. The FDIC will analyze the compliance management system of each of the IDIs, as well as the compliance management system for the resulting IDI to ensure that appropriate controls will be implemented to identify, monitor, and address consumer compliance risks. Consideration will also be given to the consumer compliance rating pursuant to the Uniform Interagency Consumer Compliance Rating System and the CRA rating.
Additional managerial resource considerations include:
• The supervisory history of each entity involved in the proposed merger, including the management rating
• The breadth and depth of management, and adequacy of succession planning;
• Management's responsiveness to issues or supervisory recommendations raised by regulators or auditors;
• Any existing or pending enforcement actions;
• Any issues or concerns with regard to specialty areas including information technology, trust, consumer compliance, CRA, or Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/countering the financing of terrorist activities (CFT);
• The reasonableness of fees, expenses, and other payments made to insiders; and
• Recent rapid growth and the record of management in overseeing and controlling risks associated with such growth.
The FDIC expects management to develop and implement effective plans and strategies, and the resulting IDI to have the managerial and operational capacity to integrate the acquired entity. Effective integration includes, but is not limited to, human capital; products and services; operating systems, policies, and procedures; internal controls and audit coverage; physical locations; information technology; and risk management programs. In conjunction with the integration, the FDIC expects a resulting IDI to have the managerial and operational capacity, and to devote adequate resources, to ensure full and timely compliance with any outstanding corrective programs or supervisory recommendations.
The BMA requires the responsible agency to consider the future prospects of the existing and proposed entities involved in a merger transaction.
The BMA requires the responsible agency to consider the convenience and needs of the community to be served when evaluating a merger transaction.
The FDIC expects applicants to provide specific and forward-looking information to enable the FDIC to evaluate the expected benefits of the merger on the convenience and needs of the community to be served. As appropriate, claims and commitments made to the FDIC to support the evaluation of the expected benefits of the merger may be included in the Order, and through ongoing supervisory efforts, the FDIC will evaluate the IDI's adherence with any such claims and commitments. The FDIC will evaluate the community to be served broadly, which will include the proposed assessment area(s), retail delivery systems, populations in affected communities, and identified needs for banking services.
As part of its evaluation, the FDIC will review the CRA record of the IDIs. The CRA requires the FDIC to take into account each IDI's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution.
In addition, the FDIC will consider the record of each IDI in complying with consumer protection requirements and maintaining a sound and effective compliance management system. This review will include consideration of any existing or pending orders, ongoing enforcement actions, and pending reviews or investigations of violations of consumer protection laws and regulations. A less than Satisfactory consumer compliance rating
The CRA assessment area(s) and branch locations resulting from the merger are evaluated as part of this factor. The assessment area(s) should be delineated in accordance with 12 CFR part 345 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations (or other appropriate regulations), and should not reflect illegal discrimination. The FDIC will evaluate all projected or anticipated branch expansion, closings, or consolidations for the first three years following consummation of the merger.
The FDIC will consider all substantive public comments received in accordance with § 303.9 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations,
As noted above, the BMA prohibits the FDIC from approving a merger transaction that may substantially lessen competition in any section of the country, unless the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.
Section 604 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
• The size of the entities involved in the transaction;
• The availability of substitute providers for any critical products or services to be offered by the resulting IDI;
• The resulting IDI's degree of interconnectedness with the U.S. banking or financial system;
• The extent to which the resulting IDI contributes to the U.S. banking or financial system's complexity; and
• The extent of the resulting IDI's cross-border activities.
Generally, the FDIC will not view the size of the entities involved in a proposed merger transaction as a sole basis for determining the risk to the U.S. banking or financial system's stability. However, transactions that result in a large IDI (
With regard to substitute providers, the FDIC will consider whether the resulting IDI provides critical products or services that may be difficult to replace, or conducts activities (including specific business lines) that comprise a relatively large share of system-wide activities. Concerns are heightened, and may preclude favorable resolution of this factor, in situations where there are limited readily available substitutes; as such, services may be disrupted or discontinued if the resulting IDI encounters financial distress or fails.
In assessing the resulting IDI's interconnectedness, the FDIC will consider the degree to which the merging entities are engaged in transactions or relationships with IDIs, affiliates of banking organizations, or other financial service providers. Consideration will be given to whether any exposures with creditors, counterparties, investors, or other market participants could affect the U.S. banking or financial system. A resulting IDI may present financial stability concerns if key aspects of its business (including any on- or off-balance sheet activities) are highly interconnected with other financial system participants.
The FDIC's evaluation of the resulting IDI's contribution to the U.S banking or financial system's complexity will consider the full scope of the IDI's operations. This includes the IDI's business lines, products and services, on- and off-balance sheet activities, branch network and delivery channels, number of account holders (including the volume of uninsured deposits), extent of information technology systems, and any material affiliate or other third-party relationships. As part of evaluating the resulting IDI's impact on complexity, the FDIC will also consider its resolvability in a potential failure situation. The FDIC may not be able to find favorably on this factor
The extent of a resulting IDI's cross-border activities may also have implications with regard to a favorable finding on this factor.
The above list of items is not exhaustive. The FDIC will evaluate any additional elements that may affect the risk to the U.S. banking or financial system's stability. This may include the resulting IDI's regulatory framework; however, the framework alone would not result in a favorable finding on this factor when other financial stability concerns exist.
Proposed transactions that solely involve affiliates that were related at the time a merger application is filed generally will not raise concerns with regard to this factor. However, each proposal will be reviewed to ensure that the resulting IDI would not present any new or unforeseen financial stability risks that may not have existed when the merging entities operated as affiliates or on a standalone basis.
The BMA requires the responsible agency to consider the effectiveness of any IDI involved in a merger transaction in combatting money-laundering activities, including in overseas branches.
Significant unresolved AML/CFT concerns or uncorrected problems, or an outstanding or proposed formal or informal enforcement action that includes provisions related to AML/CFT, will generally result in unfavorable findings on this factor.
In cases where section 44 of the FDI Act applies to an interstate merger transaction, the FDIC will ensure that the additional requirements and restrictions of section 44 are satisfied.
Historically, most merger transactions considered by the FDIC have involved traditional community banks. In general, traditional community banks focus on providing the banking services, including loans and core deposits, typically relied on by individuals and businesses in their local communities. However, merger applications may also involve non-banks
Applications may involve an existing IDI merging with an operating entity that is not FDIC-insured. Operating non-insured entities may vary widely in the type of business and activities conducted (
The FDIC will review audited financial statements (covering at least three years, unless the entity's operating history is shorter) and assess any deferred tax assets or liabilities, intangible assets, contingent liabilities, and any recent or pending legal or regulatory actions. Further, independent appraisals or valuations may be necessary to support the projected value of any business (or assets) expected to be transferred from the operating non-insured entity to the resultant IDI through the merger transaction.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations to reflect current defense trade policy toward Cyprus.
This rule is effective on October 1, 2024.
Mr. Hershel Tamboli, Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, telephone (771) 204-0008; email
The Department of State (the Department) amends section 126.1 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130) to specify that the Republic of Cyprus' status as a proscribed destination is suspended from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025. This action continues the Department's current policy, which originally lifted the arms embargo to the Republic of Cyprus, under section 126.1 of the ITAR, on October 1, 2022.
Specifically, section 1250A(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
On April 14, 2020, the President delegated to the Secretary of State the functions and authorities vested by the 2020 NDAA and the EMSEPA (85 FR 35797, June 12, 2020). On August 19, 2024, utilizing these authorities, the Secretary of State certified to the appropriate congressional committees that the Republic of Cyprus meets the statutory requirements to remove the policy of denial for exports, reexports, and transfers of defense articles to the Republic of Cyprus for fiscal year 2025. The Secretary of State further approved the suspension of the policy of denial for exports, reexports, and transfers of defense articles and defense services to the Republic of Cyprus for fiscal year 2025. In conjunction with this action, the Secretary of State also suspended the policy of denial for retransfers and temporary imports destined for or originating in the Republic of Cyprus and brokering activities involving the Republic of Cyprus for fiscal year 2025.
As a result of this certification, certain exemptions to licensing requirements continue to be available for exports, reexports, retransfers, and temporary imports destined for or originating in the Republic of Cyprus and brokering activities involving the Republic of Cyprus, provided the conditions for use of those exemptions are met. Applications for licenses and other authorizations submitted to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls involving the Republic of Cyprus and nationals of the Republic of Cyprus are subject to case-by-case review.
This rulemaking involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States under 5 U.S.C. 553(a). As the provisions of section 553 do not apply to this rulemaking, the Department is publishing this rule with a specified effective date and without a request for public comment.
Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
It is the view of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that this rulemaking is not a major rule under the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not increase costs or prices and should have no adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. The Department does not expect this rule to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
This rulemaking 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094) and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Because the scope of this rule implements a governmental policy expanding defense trade with a country, and does not impose additional regulatory requirements or obligations, the Department believes costs associated with this rule will be minimal. This rule has been designated as a significant regulatory action by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Executive Order 12866, as amended.
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, part 126 is amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 287c, 2651a, 2752, 2753, 2776, 2778, 2779, 2779a, 2780, 2791, 2797; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375, 118 Stat. 2091; Sec. 7045, Pub. L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 1232; Sec. 1250A, Pub. L 116-92, 133 Stat. 1665; Sec. 205, Pub. L. 116-94, 133 Stat.
(r)
(2) From October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025, the policy of denial and the status of Cyprus as a proscribed destination is suspended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing four security zones for certain navigable waters on the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers to prevent waterside threats for persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service (USSS). These security zones will be enforced intermittently and when persons under USSS protection are in the area. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering or remaining in the zones unless specifically exempt under the provisions of this rule or granted specific permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh. The regulation will enhance the safety and security of persons and property, while minimizing, to the extent possible, the impact on commerce and legitimate waterway use.
This rule is effective without actual notice from September 27, 2024 through November 30, 2024. For the purpose of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 23, 2024, until September 27, 2024. This rule will be enforced when persons under USSS protection are in the vicinity of one of the security zone areas.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Brett Lanzel, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-815-6624, email
On seven separate occasions since February 2024, the COTP has established temporary security zones encompassing certain U.S. navigable waters on the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio River. These security zones were established and enforced at the request of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) to support security measures required during visits by high-ranking United States government officials.
There is a high likelihood that between September 23, 2024, and November 30, 2024, there will be several visits to the Pittsburgh, PA area by persons under USSS protection. Most of these visits will occur with less than two weeks' notice. Therefore, the Coast Guard is establishing these security zones to notify the public that when these visits occur, the Coast Guard may enforce one or more security zones to ensure the safety of the protected persons, vessels, bridges, and the public while the protected persons transit bridges or are at waterfront facilities. The security zones will be enforced only when protected persons are in the area. The Coast Guard will provide local notice for each instance the security zones will be enforced.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule due to the short time period between event planners notifying the Coast Guard and the effective date needed for the security zones.
It is impracticable because this security zone must be established by September 23, 2024, to provide for the security of life on the navigable waters during anticipated dignitary visits, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. And publishing an NPRM is contrary to the public interest because waiting for the NPRM process would delay the establishment of the security zone until after the date of anticipated dignitary visits.
Additionally, 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. 70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that four security zone are needed to protect various visiting dignitaries, persons, and property during multiple anticipated visits between September 23, 2024, until November 30, 2024. This rule is necessary to provide waterside security and protection when persons under USSS protection are in these areas. These security zones will protect both the persons under USSS protection, vessels and certain shoreside facilities, and the public from potential hazards and threats.
This rule establishes four security zones that will be enforced at one (1) mile segments for up to six (6) hours each during various dignitary bridge crossings or waterside events from September 23, 2024, through November 30, 2024. The Coast Guard will provide local notice for each instance of enforcement. This rule is necessary to
Security Zone One will cover all navigable waters on the Monongahela River Mile Markers 0-43.5. Security Zone Two will cover all navigable waters on the Allegheny River Mile Markers 0-14.5. Security Zone Three will cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River Mile Markers 0-28.5. Security Zone Four will cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River Mile Marker 89-93. The duration of each instance of enforcement of the security zone is intended to protect a visiting dignitary and the other persons and property in the zone. These security zones may be activated individually or simultaneously with respect to the presence of USSS protectees.
No vessel or person is permitted to enter or remain in the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative of the COTP. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of the COTP. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh at 206-815-6624. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the security zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.
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 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 size, location, and duration of the temporary security zones. These security zones will impact one (1) mile stretches for up to six (6) hours at a time on the Monongahela River, Allegheny River and the Ohio River starting September 23, 2024, and ending November 30, 2024. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the enforcement of these zones and this rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves four security zones to be enforced in one (1)
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)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on Channel 16. The COTP's representative may be contacted at 206-815-6624. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure the entirety of all or each security zones if deemed necessary to address security threats or concerns.
(d)
(2) These security zones may be enforced individually or simultaneously.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the removal of pipeline from the floor of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel near gated pair lights 31 and 32. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from September 27, 2024, through October 31, 2024. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 23, 2024, until September 27, 2024. It will be subject to enforcement each day it is in effect, between the hours of 9 p.m. to 3 a.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5130, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This rule is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with removal of the pipeline, include the deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diving
In addition, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that hazards inherent in underwater pipeline removal activities necessitate provisions to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment while those activities are taking place. The activities giving rise to these hazards include the deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diving operations, and various other activities which create underwater hazards while people are working.
This rule establishes a safety zone from September 23, 2024, through October 31, 2024. The rule is subject to enforcement from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. each day it is in effect. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel near gated pair lights 31 and 32, near pipeline removal operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zones during the period in which the rule is subject to enforcement without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 1-800-874-2143. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.
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 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 safety zone. The safety zone covers less than 0.5 square mile area of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel in Texas. The temporary safety zone will be subject to enforcement for a period of six consecutive hours each day of the period, from September 23, 2024, to October 31, 2024.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial, direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C 70034, 70051; 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(e)
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Department of Education.
Final regulations; correction.
On August 29, 2024, the Department of Education (Department) published in the
Effective September 30, 2024.
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4C212, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6776. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
On August 29, 2024, the Department published in the
Specifically, we are correcting:
• The wording of the regulatory text being replaced in § 75.50;
• Section 75.210 by restoring a selection criterion factor from the current regulation which was inadvertently omitted from the revisions to that section;
• One paragraph designation in § 75.225;
• Punctuation in the section heading for § 75.591 to maintain the format of the current heading;
• The wording of the regulatory text being replaced in the amendatory instruction for § 76.100;
• The section number in the amendatory instruction for § 76.564;
• A reference to Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, or “CFDA number,” in § 76.711, and making a related conforming edit to replace that term with Assistance Listing Number, or “ALN”;
• The instruction for § 76.783, to remove only one instance of the word “or”; and
• A typo in the instruction for § 79.4.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
Rulemaking is “unnecessary” in those situations in which “the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
The APA generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). As previously stated, because the regulatory changes correct errors, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date in the APA and make the corrections effective September 30, 2024.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
In FR Doc. 2024-17239, published in the
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(xxx) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on October 12, 2022. EPA is approving changes allowing the option for aerospace parts and products coating operations in Florida to comply with Federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements in lieu of the volatile organic compound (VOC) standards in Florida's Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP) rule (hereinafter referred to as FL MMPP Rule) in the Florida SIP. EPA has determined that the changes included in Florida's October 12, 2022, submission are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air
This rule is effective October 28, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0273. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Simone Jarvis, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8393. Ms. Jarvis can also be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is approving changes to the Florida SIP submitted by the State on October 12, 2022. The changes address the FL MMPP Rule—Rule 62-296.513,
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61055), EPA proposed to approve changes to the State's MMPP Rule, which revises the SIP to provide that aerospace parts and products coating operations classified as area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) may, in lieu of complying with the VOC requirements of the FL MMPP Rule, instead comply with specified elements of EPA's NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG (Aerospace NESHAP). Major sources of HAPs, which are required to comply with the Aerospace NESHAP, would also be exempt from the FL MMPP Rule. In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing its approval of Florida's October 12, 2022, request to incorporate the changes to the FL MMPP Rule into the Florida SIP. EPA's rationale for approving the changes is described in the July 30, 2024, NPRM. Comments on the July 30, 2024, NPRM were due on or before August 29, 2024. EPA received three sets of comments on the NPRM. EPA received two sets of substantively identical comments from the same commenter. These comments are addressed below and are available in the docket for this action. The third set of comments is not relevant to this action and is excluded from the docket.
EPA received two substantively identical sets of comments on the July 30, 2024, NPRM from Clean Future (Commenter). EPA has summarized and responded to the comments below:
The scope of EPA's review in evaluating SIP revisions is limited to the process in CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR part 51. Under CAA section 110, States have broad discretion to choose the mix of emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques that they will implement (or update) through a SIP to provide for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's role, with respect to a SIP revision, is focused on reviewing the submission to determine whether it meets the minimum criteria of the CAA. These minimum criteria include CAA section 110(l) which prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Where a SIP revision meets the minimum CAA criteria, EPA must approve the submission. When approving a SIP revision, the Agency is not establishing its own requirements for the State to implement. If, at any time, EPA finds that a SIP is inadequate to attain or maintain the relevant NAAQS or otherwise does not comply with the CAA, EPA has the authority under CAA section 110(k)(5) to require the State to revise its SIP to correct such inadequacies.
Regarding the suggestion that EPA provide a thorough analysis of anticipated decreases in VOC emission associated with this SIP revision, EPA discussed the potential changes in VOC emissions in the NPRM, and the Commenter has not pointed to any specific concerns with EPA's analysis of VOC emissions. In the NPRM, EPA noted that the SIP revision would allow
EPA initially incorporated the FL MMPP Rule into the SIP as part of Florida's measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62-296.513, F.A.C.,
EPA is approving the October 12, 2022, Florida SIP revision consisting of amendments to Rule 62-296.513, F.A.C.,
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 agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 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.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a
The FDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the 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 or Agency) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulations to extend the submission deadline for 2024 reports to November 22, 2024. This extension is for the 2024 submission period only. The TSCA CDR regulations require manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) to report data on the manufacturing, processing, and use of the chemical substances.
This final rule is effective September 27, 2024.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0321, is available online at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (including import) chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include but are not limited to:
• Chemical manufacturers (including importers) (NAICS codes 325 and 324110,
• Chemical users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344,
The current 2024 CDR submission period is from June 1 to September 30, 2024. EPA is issuing this amendment to extend the deadline for the submission of 2024 CDR reports until November 22, 2024. This extension is for the 2024 submission period only. Subsequent submission periods (recurring every four years, next in 2028) are not being amended.
EPA is taking this action in response to concerns related to the 2024 CDR data submission tool, primarily associated with the ability of the reporting tool to correctly capture substantiations for chemical identity CBI claims. In the tool, submitters are able to claim as confidential the identity of a chemical substance already listed as confidential on the TSCA Inventory (40 CFR 711.30(c)) by checking the appropriate CBI box in the reporting tool and submitting detailed written answers to substantiation questions. Late in the 2024 reporting period, however, EPA found that when submitters used the reporting tool to copy the substantiation from one chemical to another, some questions and their responses were not copied and were, therefore, not included with the submission. The application erroneously indicated that the information was correctly copied and prevented users from supplying the missing information. Although this issue would only affect the small percentage of the submitters making chemical identity CBI claims, enabling each submitter to substantiate a CBI claim according to the requirements of 40 CFR 711.30 is important.
As noted previously, this issue with the CDR data submission tool was identified very recently. When EPA identified the issue, the Agency took immediate action to fix the issue and extend the reporting period. EPA expects to have the reporting tool working properly before the end of September 2024. Ahead of deploying this correction to the tool, EPA (through the reporting application) has asked that users submitting CBI claims involving chemical identities refrain from copying data from one chemical to another. The risk that some users may still use this copy functionality without realizing that it does not work properly (and that their CBI claim(s) therefore have not been properly substantiated), however, indicates that more time is needed to ensure reports are accurately filed. To this end, submitters need adequate time to verify and update, if needed, their chemical identity confidentiality claims and supporting substantiations. Further, EPA needs time to ensure that the update to the reporting tool works as intended, and that sites that have submitted CDR forms prior to deployment of this update have adequate time to review their submission and make updates as appropriate, should this error have resulted in their submission having been incorrectly provided to EPA.
The CDR rule was issued pursuant to the authority of TSCA section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 2607(a).
Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule to extend the reporting period final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because such notice and opportunity for comment is impracticable for the reasons explained in this section.
As explained in the prior section, the electronic reporting issue has unexpectedly narrowed the time window the Agency had allotted under the regulations to complete and submit 2024 CDR reports. The extent of this electronic reporting issue was unforeseen, given that EPA had conducted a beta test with expected users of the reporting tool prior to the beginning of the submission period, and EPA staff similarly had not discovered this issue until three weeks ahead of the September 30, 2024, reporting deadline. Further, most sites submit CDR data during the final month of the reporting period, having collected and prepared data earlier in the submission period. Given that the current reporting deadline is September 30, 2024, regular notice and comment procedures to extend that deadline to address these unforeseen circumstances are impracticable, as the rule could not be finalized before the current reporting deadline. Additionally, notice and comment is impracticable because this deadline extension merely enables reports to be submitted as required under the current regulations, absent these unforeseen submission problems, and does not impact the substance of the data collection or other regulatory requirements.
This action does not alter the substantive CDR reporting requirements in any way. The Agency also believes this extension will not result in a significant delay in the processing and availability of CDR information to potential users. This extension will not significantly impact the Agency's ability to carry out actions and activities that rely upon CDR, including work on the TSCA risk evaluations. EPA will consider CDR information as soon as it becomes available and work on risk evaluations remains ongoing. Further, this action is consistent with the public interest because it is designed to facilitate compliance with the CDR rule and to ensure that the 2024 collection includes accurate data on chemical manufacturing, processing, and use in the United States. Finally, any impact on the regulated community is expected to be beneficial given that the extension provides additional time to submit accurate CDR reports to EPA.
APA section 553(d) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)), in turn, allows an agency to make a rule immediately effective “for good cause found and published with the rule.” EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule effective immediately because the current deadline for reporting is imminent and the regulated community does not need time to prepare for this change in the reporting deadline; rather, the reporting deadline extension provides the needed time for the regulated community to meet the existing requirements. Such an extension also “relieves a restriction” under APA 553(d)(1), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
For the reasons discussed in this unit, the Agency finds that good cause exists under APA section 553(d) to make this rule effective immediately upon publication in the
No. This action is a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 711 that is necessary in order to extend the deadline for the 2024 CDR reporting period that appears in 40 CFR 711.20. This action does not otherwise impose
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.
This action does not contain any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) or more as described in UMRA, 2. U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action will not have federalism impacts as defined in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because this action will not have substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and States.
This action will not have tribal implications as defined in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because this action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
This action does not involve technical standards under the NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns in accordance with Executive Orders 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023).
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Confidential Business Information (CBI), Hazardous materials, Importer, Manufacturer, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 711 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2607(a).
All information reported to EPA in response to the requirements of this part must be submitted during an applicable submission period. The 2024 CDR submission period is from June 1, 2024, to November 22, 2024. Subsequent recurring submission periods are from June 1 to September 30 at 4-year intervals, beginning in 2028. In each submission period, any person described in § 711.8 must report as described in this part.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule.
This final rule addresses policies for assessing performance year (PY) 2023 financial performance of Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs); establishing
These regulations are effective on October 15, 2024.
Richard (Chase) Kendall, (410) 786-1000, or
Throughout this final rule, we use CPT codes and descriptions to refer to a variety of services. We note that CPT codes and descriptions are copyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. CPT is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association (AMA). Applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR) apply.
Section 1899 of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395jjj), as added by section 3022 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, enacted March 23, 2010), establishes the general requirements for payments to participating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in the Shared Savings Program. Specifically, section 1899(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that providers of services and suppliers participating in an ACO will continue to receive payment under the original Medicare fee-for-service program under Parts A and B in the same manner as they would otherwise be made. However, section 1899(d)(1)(A) of the Act also provides for an ACO to receive payment for shared savings provided that the ACO meets both the quality performance standards established by the Secretary and demonstrates that it has achieved savings against a benchmark of expected average per capita Medicare FFS expenditures. Additionally, section 1899(i) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to use other payment models in place of the one-sided model described in section 1899(d) of the Act. This provision authorizes the Secretary to select a partial capitation model or any other payment model that the Secretary determines will improve the quality and efficiency of items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries without additional program expenditures. We have used our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to establish the Shared Savings Program's two-sided payment models (see for example, 80 FR 32771 and 32772, and 83 FR 67834 through 67841) and to mitigate shared losses owed by ACOs affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during performance year (PY) 2017 and subsequent performance years (82 FR 60916 and 60917, 83 FR 59974 through 59977), among other uses of this authority described elsewhere in this final rule.
Section 1899(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act specifies that, in each year of the agreement period, an ACO is eligible to receive payment for shared savings only if the estimated average per capita Medicare expenditures under the ACO for Medicare FFS beneficiaries for Parts A and B services, adjusted for beneficiary characteristics, is at least the percent specified by the Secretary below the applicable benchmark under section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act addresses how ACO benchmarks are to be established and updated under the Shared Savings Program. This provision specifies that the Secretary shall estimate a benchmark for each agreement period for each ACO using the most recent available 3 years of per beneficiary expenditures for Parts A and B services for Medicare FFS beneficiaries assigned to the ACO. This benchmark shall be adjusted for beneficiary characteristics and such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate and updated by the projected absolute amount of growth in national per capita expenditures for Parts A and B services under the original Medicare FFS program, as estimated by the Secretary.
In past rulemaking, we have used our authority under sections 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) and 1899(i)(3) of the Act to establish adjustments to the benchmark and program expenditure calculations, respectively, to exclude certain Medicare Parts A and B payments. In the November 2011 final rule (76 FR 67920 through 67922), we adopted an alternate payment methodology that excluded Indirect Medical Education (IME) and Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments from ACO benchmark and performance year expenditures due to concerns that the inclusion of these amounts would incentivize ACOs to avoid referring patients to the types of providers that receive these payments. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2023 Physician Fee Schedule final rule (87 FR 69954 through 69956), we excluded new supplemental payments to Indian Health Service/Tribal hospitals and hospitals located in Puerto Rico consistent with our longstanding policy to exclude IME, DSH and uncompensated care payments from ACOs' assigned and assignable beneficiary expenditure calculations. In the interim final rule with comment period entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Basic Health Program, and Exchanges; Additional Policy and Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and Delay of Certain Reporting Requirements for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program” which was effective on May 8, 2020, and appeared in the May 8, 2020
We published a proposed rule entitled “Significant, Anomalous, and Highly Suspect Billing Activity on Medicare Shared Savings Program Financial Calculations in Calendar Year 2023, which appeared in the July 3, 2024
In the SAHS billing activity proposed rule (89 FR 55169), we explained that recently, ACOs and other interested parties have raised concerns about an increase in billing to Medicare for selected intermittent urinary catheter supplies on Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics & Supplies (DMEPOS) claims in CY 2023, alleging that the increase in payments represents fraudulent activity (the “alleged conduct”). Numerous ACOs have alerted the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to potential impacts on their PY 2023 expenditures because of the increased catheter billings.
In early 2023, CMS detected a suspicious increase in billing for urinary catheters. Using our authority to suspend payments, CMS quickly stopped payment on almost all of these claims and began investigating the suppliers who were billing.
As explained in the proposed rule, CMS continues to adapt its monitoring, investigative targeting, and data analytics programs to prevent future fraud, waste, and abuse. CMS also continues to work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and Department of Justice, as well as our Unified Program Integrity Contractors, to investigate health care fraud activities, such as those involving urinary catheter supplies, that exploit the Medicare program.
The observed DMEPOS billing volume for intermittent urinary catheters in CY 2023 represents SAHS billing activity. Generally, this means that a given HCPCS or CPT code exhibits a level of billing that represents a significant claims increase either in volume or dollars (for example, dollar volume significantly above prior year, or claims volume beyond expectations) with national or regional impact (for example, not only impacting one or few ACOs) and represents a deviation from historical utilization trends that is unexpected and is not clearly attributable to reasonably explained changes in policy or the supply or demand for covered items or services. The billing level is significant and represents billing activity that would cause significantly inaccurate and inequitable payments and repayment obligations in the Shared Savings Program if not addressed.
We explained that current Shared Savings Program regulations, codified at 42 CFR part 425, do not provide a basis for CMS to adjust program expenditure or revenue calculations to remove the impact of SAHS billing activity such as that arising from the alleged conduct in advance of issuing an initial determination. CMS may reopen an initial determination or a final agency determination and issue a revised initial determination at any time in the case of fraud or similar fault, and not later than 4 years after the date of the notification to the ACO of the initial determination of savings or losses for the relevant performance year for good cause (§ 425.315). This does not allow for CMS to address SAHS billing activity, which must be addressed prior to conducting financial reconciliation, which is an initial determination, to prevent significant inequity and inaccurate payment determinations.
We explained that we shared (and continue to share) the concerns recently raised by some ACOs and other interested parties that SAHS billing activity for the selected codes for intermittent urinary catheters would impact Shared Savings Program calculations for PY 2023 and we are also concerned about the impact on other program calculations based on CY 2023 data. Specifically, we are concerned that absent mitigation measures, this SAHS billing activity would inflate Medicare Parts A and B payment amounts, including:
• PY 2023 reconciliation calculations, including expenditures for each ACO's assigned beneficiaries for PY 2023, the national-regional blended update factor used to update the benchmark for all ACOs (refer to § 425.601(b)), and factors based on ACO participant revenue to determine the loss recoupment limits for ACOs participating under two-sided models of the BASIC track (Levels C, D, E) (refer to § 425.605(d)).
• Historical benchmark calculations for establishing the benchmark for ACOs beginning new agreement periods on January 1, 2024, January 1, 2025, or January 1, 2026, for which CY 2023 serves as benchmark year (BY) 3, BY2 and BY1, respectively (refer to § 425.652(a)).
• Factors used in the application cycle for ACOs applying to enter a new agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, and the change request cycle for ACOs continuing their participation in the program for PY 2025, including data used to determine an ACO's eligibility for Advance Investment Payments under § 425.630(b), or for the CMS Innovation Center's new ACO Primary Care Flex Model (ACO PC Flex Model) for the January 1, 2025, start date based on ACO revenue status (high revenue or low revenue), and to determine repayment mechanism amounts for ACOs entering, or continuing in, two-sided models for PY 2025 (refer to § 425.204(f)).
The accuracy of the Shared Savings Program's determination of an ACO's financial performance (through a process referred to as financial reconciliation) in terms of the ACO's eligibility for and amount of a shared savings payment or liability for shared losses, depends on the accuracy of claims data. Absent CMS action, the SAHS billing activity would affect PY 2023 financial reconciliation program-wide rather than being limited to ACOs that have assigned beneficiaries directly impacted by the issue. For instance:
• An ACO with assigned beneficiaries impacted by the SAHS billing activity for intermittent urinary catheters would see an increase in performance year expenditures, reducing the ACO's shared savings or increasing the amount of shared losses owed by the ACO. The impact on the ACO's performance may be partially mitigated if the SAHS billing activity also increases the ACO's regional service area expenditures and the national expenditures used to calculate the two-way national-regional blended benchmark update factor.
• An ACO with assigned beneficiary expenditures and regional service area expenditures with little or no impact from the SAHS billing activity would
Unaddressed, the SAHS billing activity would distort the historical benchmarks for an ACO that entered an agreement period beginning on January 1, 2024, or will enter an agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, or January 1, 2026 (for which CY 2023 will continue to be a benchmark year) and the accuracy of any future financial reconciliation performed against those benchmarks. Similarly, inaccurate revenue and expenditure calculations based on CY 2023 data may affect an ACO's revenue status and the amount of funds an ACO in a two-sided model must secure as a repayment mechanism, one of the program's important safeguards for protecting the Medicare Trust Funds. Given the scope of the SAHS billing activity, there is a high likelihood that, absent CMS action, shared savings and losses calculations for PY 2023, and for future performance years where CY 2023 is a benchmark year, would be significantly impacted for ACOs. Under these circumstances, some ACOs are likely to experience adverse impacts (for example, lower or no shared savings or higher shared losses) while other ACOs would experience windfall gains (for example, higher shared savings or lower or no shared losses).
In the SAHS billing activity proposed rule (89 FR 55170), we explained that failing to address SAHS billing activity that occurred in CY 2023 would jeopardize the integrity of the Shared Savings Program. There are 480 ACOs in the Shared Savings Program with over 608,000 health care providers who care for 10.8 million assigned FFS beneficiaries.
For these reasons, we determined it was timely and appropriate to undertake notice and comment rulemaking to propose an approach for mitigating the impact of SAHS billing activity in CY 2023 on Shared Savings Program financial calculations. In this Background section of the final rule, we summarize and respond to general comments we received related to CMS undertaking notice and comment rulemaking on this topic. In the following sections of this final rule, we summarize and respond to public comments we received on the specific proposals outlined in the SAHS billing activity proposed rule and discuss our final policies after taking into consideration the public comments.
Supportive commenters offered a variety of reasons why they believed undertaking rulemaking was appropriate to mitigate SAHS billing activity for selected catheter codes. Many commenters agreed that the proposals would ensure the accuracy, fairness, or integrity of Shared Savings Program financial calculations. One commenter described the proposal as a “crucial step” and a “necessary and well-supported measure” to ensure or enhance the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of financial calculations in the Shared Savings Program. A couple of commenters agreed with CMS that addressing the SAHS billing activity promptly is essential to preventing inaccurate and inequitable payment and repayment obligations for ACOs, with one also stating that the proposals will help “rectify the financial distortions” caused by the SAHS billing activity for the catheter codes. One commenter stated that the proposed rule highlights CMS's dedication to addressing fraud as well as ensuring that the Shared Savings Program operates effectively while fostering a more transparent and equitable system. Other commenters stated that the proposals would improve sustainability of the Shared Savings Program. For instance, one commenter claimed that an “accurate and fair reconciliation process will ensure that health systems, ACOs and providers continue to participate in value-based care models with CMS in the future,” and a couple of other commenters asserted that the proposals will help keep ACOs in the program. Another commenter said that the proposals are important to “maintain a strong, predictable ACO program,” and another mentioned that not addressing the SAHS billing activity could lead to ACOs leaving the program.
As described above, CMS continues to investigate the matter and we have taken initial actions in response. We have made referrals to law enforcement and terminated certain suppliers from the Medicare program. CMS also continues to work closely with the HHS-OIG and Department of Justice, as well as our Unified Program Integrity Contractors, to investigate health care fraud activities, such as those involving urinary catheters, that exploit the Medicare program. We also undertook this notice and comment rulemaking to propose an approach for mitigating the impact of SAHS billing activity in CY 2023 on Shared Savings Program financial calculations.
As we explained in the SAHS billing activity proposed rule (89 FR 55170), DMEPOS billing to Medicare for selected intermittent urinary catheter supplies has increased significantly since the first quarter of CY 2023, with a relatively small number of suppliers submitting a large majority of all claims for these devices. At a program level, spending in these codes remained less than 0.1 percent of total FFS spending in every year from CY 2016 to CY 2022 before increasing to nearly 1 percent in CY 2023. The SAHS billing activity has had a national impact, as evidenced by discussion of the issue in the 2024 Medicare Trustees Report, which noted a significant increase in suspected fraudulent spending on certain intermittent catheters in 2023. The DME projections in the report include the assumption that this suspected fraud would be addressed during 2024.
We explained that based on our evaluation of billing trends for individual catheter codes across CY 2023 and in consultation with the CMS Center for Program Integrity (CPI) and the CMS Office of the Actuary (OACT), we have determined that two specific HCPCS codes displayed SAHS billing activity in CY 2023: A4352 (
Some commenters supported their agreement that the two catheter codes displayed SAHS billing activity by including data to highlight how billing activity for the selected catheter codes impacted their ACO expenditures, and other commenters offered data on the impact on national assignable FFS expenditures.
In developing the proposed rule, we assessed the impact of an increase in billing to Medicare for intermittent urinary catheter services on DMEPOS claims in CY 2023. We determined that billing activity for HCPCS codes A4352 and A4353 was SAHS billing activity while A4351 was not. HCPCS codes A4352 and A4353 were billed at significantly higher rates in CY 2023 compared to CY 2022 (claims increasing by 163 percent for A4352 and by over 5,000 percent for A4353), for which CMS was unable to identify a clear justification for the increases (for example, neither represent a newly adopted code for which a natural increase in billing might be expected). We also determined that the change in claim volume was significant and unexplained, and if not addressed, would cause inaccurate and inequitable payments and repayment obligations in the Shared Savings Program.
Our assessment found that billing activity for HCPCS code A4351, however, was not SAHS billing activity. Compared to catheter codes A4352 and A4353, billing for HCPCS code A4351 exhibited a much smaller increase between CY 2022 and CY 2023, with claims rising by approximately 16 percent. Also, unlike A4352 and A4353, where the unexplained billing increase represented the vast majority of spending on those codes in CY 2023, the billing increase for A4351 represented a small proportion of total billing activity for the code in CY 2023. We determined that this level of billing did not represent a significant claims increase with national or regional impact that unexpectedly deviated from historical utilization trends. We also determined that the increase in utilization of HCPCS code A4351 was not clearly a billing level that was representative of activity that would cause significantly inaccurate and inequitable payments and repayment obligations in the Shared Savings Program if not addressed. This conclusion was based on our finding that the increase in billing for the code was so small relative to overall spending for most ACOs and to overall national or regional spending that it would be unlikely to have significant program-wide impacts on payment and repayment obligations. However, we will continue to monitor the billing activity with this code in partnership with our program integrity colleagues.
We narrowly crafted the definition of SAHS billing activity in part out of fairness to ACOs. Both under this rule and a related proposal in the CY 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) (89 FR 61909 through 61916) to address future instances of SAHS billing activity, we are mindful of equitable concerns that may arise from CMS revising standards for the calculation of an ACO's financial performance after the start of a performance year or, in the case of CY 2023, the completion of the performance year. More specifically, we described that for billing activity to be considered SAHS, the billing activity would need to show a significant claims increase either in volume or dollars and have national or regional impact. These high standards are appropriate because the remedy we are using to correct for SAHS billing activity is the broad exclusion of the relevant CPT or HCPCS code from certain important financial calculations, and this could have mixed impact on Shared Savings Program ACOs. Without these high standards, ACOs are more likely to be held liable for losses that they would not be otherwise be accountable for or have a reduction in or loss of their shared savings.
We remain committed to evaluating other cases when improper payments may have been made and assessing the impact on Shared Savings Program calculations. For these reasons, we proposed two policies of general applicability in the CY 2025 PFS (89 FR 61596) to address instances of improper billing and payments. The first proposal in the CY 2025 PFS proposed rule would allow CMS to address instances of SAHS billing activity occurring in CY 2024 or subsequent years prior to financially reconciling the performance year in which the activity occurred (89 FR 61909 through 61916). Under the proposal, following the end of each calendar year, we would determine whether any codes exhibited SAHS billing activity (defined as described elsewhere in this final rule) and adjust expenditure and revenue calculations to exclude payment amounts. We would make these adjustments both when the calendar year serves as a benchmark or performance year. Additionally, under the proposed policy, we would adjust historical benchmarks used to reconcile the performance year when the SAHS activity occurred to remove payment amounts for the codes from benchmark year expenditures.
The second proposal would provide relief to ACOs that are affected by instances of fraud or other improper payments that may not meet the definition of SAHS billing activity (89 FR 61892 through 61909) or for which there is not enough information available at the close of the affected calendar year to make a determination of whether SAHS billing activity occurred. Under this proposal, an ACO could request the reopening of its previously completed financial reconciliation results so that they can be reevaluated for inaccuracies as a result of new information being available. In the CY 2025 PFS proposed rule (89 FR 61596) we invited interested parties to comment on these proposals.
With respect to performance years prior to CY 2023, we note that CMS has already completed financial reconciliation for those years, and therefore the policy approach proposed in the SAHS billing proposed rule and adopted in this final rule would not address any billing increases of catheter codes. As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, the Shared Savings Program reopening policy proposal in the CY 2025 PFS proposed rule (89 FR 61892 through 61909) presents a mechanism by which issues affecting already reconciled performance years may be addressed.
Given our concerns about leaving the SAHS billing activity unaddressed and the limitations with using an approach available under the current regulations (as we describe elsewhere in this rule), we proposed to revise the policies governing Shared Savings Program financial calculations to mitigate the impact of SAHS billing activity for selected catheter codes identified for CY
We proposed to exclude all Medicare Parts A and B payment amounts for the selected catheter HCPCS codes on DMEPOS claims from expenditure and revenue calculations for CY 2023. We would perform these adjustments for calculations for CY 2023 when it is the performance year, including when CY 2023 is used to calculate the ACO's performance year expenditures and when it is used to calculate the national-regional blended update to the benchmark used in determining financial performance for PY 2023, and also when CY 2023 is a benchmark year for ACOs in agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2024, January 1, 2025, or January 1, 2026. In performing this adjustment, we would remove payment amounts for the selected catheter HCPCS codes on DMEPOS claims submitted by any supplier; that is, we would not limit the exclusion to payment amounts on claims submitted by certain suppliers that may have individually displayed SAHS billing activity so as to protect the integrity of any potential investigations which may be ongoing.
Specifically, we would adjust the following Shared Savings Program calculations, as applicable, to exclude all Medicare Parts A and B payment amounts on DMEPOS claims (claim types 72 and 82)
• Calculation of Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for an ACO's assigned beneficiaries for all purposes including the following: Establishing, adjusting, updating, and resetting the ACO's historical benchmark and determining performance year expenditures.
• Calculation of FFS expenditures for assignable beneficiaries as used in determining county-level FFS expenditures and national Medicare FFS expenditures, including the following calculations:
++ Determining average county FFS expenditures based on expenditures for the assignable population of beneficiaries in each county in the ACO's regional service area according to §§ 425.601(c) and 425.654(a) for purposes of calculating the ACO's regional FFS expenditures.
++ Determining the 99th percentile of national Medicare FFS expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of the following:
—Truncating assigned beneficiary expenditures used in calculating benchmark expenditures under § 425.652(a)(4), and performance year expenditures under §§ 425.605(a)(3) and 425.610(a)(4).
—Truncating expenditures for assignable beneficiaries in each county for purposes of determining county FFS expenditures according to §§ 425.601(c)(3) and 425.654(a)(3).
—Truncating expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of determining truncated national per capita FFS expenditures for purposes of calculating the Accountable Care Prospective Trend (ACPT) according to § 425.660(b)(3).
++ Determining truncated national per capita expenditures FFS per capita expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of calculating the ACPT according to § 425.660(b)(3).
++ Determining national per capita expenditures for Parts A and B services under the original Medicare FFS program for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of capping the regional adjustment to the ACO's historical benchmark according to § 425.656(c)(3), and capping the prior savings adjustment according to § 425.658(c)(1)(ii).
++ Determining national growth rates that are used as part of the blended growth rates used to trend forward benchmark year (BY) 1 and BY2 expenditures to BY3 according to § 425.652(a)(5)(ii) and as part of the blended growth rates used to update the benchmark according to §§ 425.601(b)(2) and 425.652(b)(2)(i).
• Calculation of Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of ACO participants for purposes of calculating the ACO's loss recoupment limit under the BASIC track as specified in § 425.605(d).
• Calculation of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of ACO participants and total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for purposes of identifying whether an ACO is a high revenue ACO or low revenue ACO, as defined under § 425.20, and determining an ACO's eligibility to receive advance investment payments according to § 425.630.
• Calculation or recalculation of the amount of the ACO's repayment mechanism arrangement according to § 425.204(f)(4).
This approach recognizes that SAHS billing activity has the potential to impact an ACO's savings and loss determination for both PY 2023 (the year when the SAHS billing activity occurred) and future performance years for which CY 2023 is a benchmark year. Making adjustments when the affected period represents a performance year or benchmark year is consistent with our approach for the exclusion of payment amounts for episodes of care for treatment of COVID-19 that we established in the May 8, 2020 COVID-19 IFC (85 FR 27577 through 27581).
The listed calculations reflect the same set of calculations that CMS adjusts for a beneficiary's episode of care for treatment of COVID-19, specified at § 425.611(c), as amended by the CY 2021 PFS final rule (85 FR 85044), the CY 2023 PFS final rule (87 FR 70241), and the CY 2024 PFS final rule (88 FR 79548), with a few exceptions. First, § 425.611(c) includes certain provisions that are not relevant for the proposed policy.
For agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2024, and in subsequent years, CMS incorporates a fixed projected growth rate determined at the beginning of the ACO's agreement period called the ACPT into the blended update factor described in § 425.652(b) when updating an ACO's benchmark for each performance year of the agreement period.
In considering whether to propose adjusting calculations used for the ACPT, we considered whether adjusting Shared Savings Program calculations detailed earlier in this section to exclude all payment amounts for the selected catheter codes but not adjusting projected growth rates used in the three-way blend would result in a bias. We expected that a bias would be introduced if we adjusted Shared Savings Program calculations to remove SAHS billing activity from expenditures but did not make an adjustment for SAHS billing activity from the corresponding year used in ACPT projections. We thus determined it was necessary to adjust the ACPT to promote continued integrity and fairness and improve the accuracy of Shared Savings Program financial calculations. This ensures that the projected growth rates in future years (for which billing for the selected catheter claims is expected to revert to typical levels) will not be biased.
As noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement (section V. of this final rule), we anticipate that the magnitude and direction of the net impact of these various adjustments may vary from ACO to ACO. For example, excluding the selected catheter payments may reduce an ACO's performance year expenditures, but may also reduce the performance year regional and national expenditures and, in turn, the update factors applied to the ACO's historical benchmark. If the reduction to an ACO's expenditures is larger than the reduction to the national-regional blended update to the benchmark (indicating that the ACO's performance year assigned population was disproportionately impacted by the SAHS billing activity than assignable beneficiaries in the ACO's regional service area or the nation as a whole), the ACO would see an increase in total savings (or a reduction in total losses) relative to the current methodology, which makes no adjustments for SAHS billing activity. Conversely, if the reduction to the ACO's performance year expenditures is smaller than the reduction to the national-regional blended update to the benchmark, the ACO would see a decrease in total savings (or increase in total losses) relative to the current methodology.
In the SAHS billing activity proposed rule (89 FR 55172), we acknowledged that by excluding all payments for the selected HCPCS codes from CY 2023 calculations, we would exclude some payments that would have been made during the period in the absence of SAHS billing activity. This, in turn, would create some degree of inconsistency between performance year expenditure calculations and expenditure calculations for the historical benchmark against which the performance year will be reconciled, as years not directly affected by the SAHS billing activity include some level of payments for the selected codes. We explained that we considered whether to propose adjusting historical benchmarks that will be used for PY 2023 financial reconciliation to remove all payments for the selected codes from benchmark year expenditures (for example, for an ACO that started an agreement period in 2022, adjusting the benchmark used for PY 2023 financial reconciliation to remove payments for the selected codes from benchmark years 2019, 2020, and 2021). We explained that we opted against this approach for two reasons.
First, historical billing for the selected catheter HCPCS codes has generally been relatively low, including in recent years. As noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement (section V. of this final rule), billing for these codes remained less than 0.1 percent of total FFS billing in every year from 2016 to 2022, the period encompassing all benchmark years for ACOs being financially reconciled for PY 2023. Thus, in a year not impacted by SAHS billing activity, payments for these codes would likely represent only a very small portion of an ACO's total per capita expenditures or total expenditures for an ACO's regional service area or the national assignable population. This conclusion is supported by analysis at the regional level. Tabulating the difference in per capita spending for these codes at the Hospital Referral Region (HRR) from national average per capita spending across 2016 to 2022 (and expressing such difference as a percentage of per capita spending) results in a standard deviation of only 0.03 percentage points. Therefore, we believe that the impact of adjusting the benchmarks to be used for PY 2023 financial reconciliation to exclude the selected catheter payments would be very small.
Second, adjusting benchmarks for over 450 ACOs being reconciled for PY 2023 would require the recalculation of ACO, national, and regional expenditures for seven benchmark calendar years and recalculation of benchmarks under multiple benchmarking methodologies. Performing these adjustments would delay the issuance of initial determinations, and thus the disbursement of earned performance payments, potentially by several months. The SAHS billing activity in CY 2023 was unforeseen and could not have been planned for or integrated into existing operational timelines. It would take time to recompute expenditure calculations for multiple years and benchmark calculations for multiple cohorts of ACOs and review and
Section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act permits the Secretary to adjust the benchmark for beneficiary characteristics and such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate. This rule relies on this authority to remove payments for the specified catheter codes from the determination of benchmark expenditures where CY 2023 serves as a benchmark year when establishing benchmarks for ACOs in agreement periods beginning in January 2024, 2025, or 2026.
Other changes are authorized by section 1899(i)(3) of the Act. Specifically, we rely on section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to remove payment amounts for HCPCS or CPT codes for which CMS has identified SAHS billing activity from the following calculations: (1) performance year expenditures; (2) updates to the historical benchmark; and (3) ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue used for multiple purposes across the Shared Savings Program, including determinations of loss sharing limits in the two-sided models of the BASIC track
As described in the Regulatory Impact Statement (section V. of this final rule), excluding payment amounts for the selected catheter HCPCS codes from the specified calculations is not expected to result in an increase in spending beyond the expenditures that would otherwise occur under the statutory payment methodology in section 1899(d) of the Act. Further, these adjustments to our calculations to remove payment amounts for these codes will promote continued integrity and fairness and improve the accuracy of Shared Savings Program financial calculations as well as timely completion of PY 2023 financial reconciliation. As a result, we expect these policies will support ACOs continued participation in the Shared Savings Program and the program's goals of lowering growth in Medicare FFS expenditures and improving the quality of care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.
Based on these considerations, and as specified in the Regulatory Impact Statement (section V. of this final rule), we have determined that adjusting certain Shared Savings Program calculations to remove payment amounts for selected codes identified as having SAHS billing activity in CY 2023 from the calculation of performance year expenditures, updates to the historical benchmark, and ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue used for multiple purposes across the Shared Savings Program, meets the requirements for use of our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act when incorporated into the existing other payment model we have established pursuant to that section.
This final rule will be applied retroactively, as it affects a performance year that has already been completed (PY 2023) and a performance year that has already started (PY 2024). More specifically, we are retroactively adjusting expenditure calculations used in determining shared savings and losses for PY 2023 and certain other calculations including to establish historical benchmarks for ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on January 1, 2024, that are used to determine ACO financial performance for PY 2024 and subsequent years of an ACO's agreement period. Section 1871(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act permits a substantive change in regulations, manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, or guidelines of general applicability under Title XVIII of the Act to be applied retroactively to items and services furnished before the effective date of the change if the failure to apply the change retroactively would be contrary to the public interest.
Failing to apply these policies retroactively would be contrary to the public interest because it would unfairly punish Shared Savings Program ACOs by forcing them to unexpectedly assume a substantial magnitude of financial risk for costs that are outside their control and were not previously contemplated in the Shared Savings Program, undermining both the sustainability of the Shared Savings Program and the public's faith in CMS as a fair partner. We did not fully contemplate the potential for SAHS billing activity outside of an ACO's control to negatively impact ACOs financially when the Shared Savings Program was established.
Undertaking notice and comment rulemaking for this issue prior to the start of PY 2023 to avoid retroactive rulemaking was not possible because we could not have foreseen the SAHS billing activity prior to the start of the performance year. More specifically, we were only able to determine that the increase in billing on HCPCS codes A4352 and A4353 in CY 2023 was significant, anomalous, and highly suspect after the calendar year ended. To identify that the billing activity in CY 2023 was significant, anomalous, and highly suspect, CMS reviewed actual billing levels after the calendar year closed and services furnished in CY 2023 had occurred and the billing level could then be compared to billing levels observed in prior calendar years.
We proposed adding and reserving §§ 425.661 through 425.669 in subpart G and adding a new section at § 425.670 to describe adjustments CMS would make to Shared Savings Program calculations to mitigate the impact of SAHS billing activity occurring in CY 2023 (89 FR 55174). We proposed that § 425.670(b) would specify that CMS has determined that the billing of HCPCS codes A4352 (
The following is a summary of the comments we received on this proposal and our responses.
While some commenters expressed high level support for adjusting benchmark expenditures, we interpret these comments as supportive of all the adjustments to Shared Savings Program calculations we proposed in the proposed rule (89 FR 55171 through 55172) and described elsewhere in this section of the final rule.
As part of our final policy, we also decline to remove the selected catheter codes from future performance years that are reconciled using a historical benchmark that includes BY 2023. For example, when performing financial reconciliation for PY 2024 for an ACO with benchmark years 2021 through 2023, we will only exclude payment amounts for the selected catheter codes from BY 2023 expenditures and not from BY 2021, BY 2022, and PY 2024 expenditures. As we explained in the proposed rule (89 FR 55172), historical billing for the selected catheter HCPCS codes has consistently been relatively low, including in recent years. As noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement (section V. of this final rule), billing for these codes remained less than 0.1 percent of total FFS billing in every year from 2016 to 2022, the period encompassing all benchmark years for ACOs being financially reconciled for PY 2023. Thus, in a year not impacted by SAHS billing activity, payments for these codes would likely represent only a very small portion of an ACO's total per capita expenditures or total expenditures for an ACO's regional service area or the national assignable population.
Some supportive commenters from ACOs described the anticipated impact the SAHS billing activity would have on their own ACO's financial performance absent the adjustments to calculations. One commenter stated their belief that the inclusion of payment amounts for the catheter codes would “damage the integrity” of their ACO's PY 2023 financial reconciliation. A few commenters stated that without these adjustments their ACOs may not share in savings, shared savings could be negatively impacted, or their ACOs would have a high probability of being liable for shared losses. One commenter stated that if payment amounts for the selected catheter codes were included, their ACO would have a high probability of being liable for shared losses. One commenter expressed their belief that removing payment amounts for the selected catheter codes will lead to a more accurate and true evaluation of their performance, and another stated that the proposals will have a substantial impact on their ACO's “sustainability.” A couple of commenters asserted their ACO expenditures were significantly impacted by the SAHS billing activity for the catheter codes.
A couple of commenters shared a concern about the retroactive nature of the changes, with one stating that “unforeseen financially harmful calculations” would be applied after the performance year has been completed with no time for ACOs to make any changes in decisions or operations. Both noted that ACOs used data received during the performance year (which would not have excluded payment amounts associated with the selected codes) to inform ACO activities, including strategies, resourced interventions, and participation decisions.
In the SAHS billing activity proposed rule (89 FR 55174), we explained that there is an urgent need to address the impact of SAHS billing activity on Shared Savings Program calculations based on CY 2023 data used in determining PY 2023 financial performance, in establishing benchmarks for ACOs participating in agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2024, and in calculating factors used in the application cycle for ACOs applying to enter a new agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, and the change request cycle for ACOs continuing their participation in the program for PY 2025.
We explained (89 FR 55174) that significant delays in the issuance of initial determinations for PY 2023 financial performance, and related shared savings payments, would be substantially disruptive to ACOs that exclusively receive revenue from shared savings payments, particularly small, rural, and low revenue ACOs and those serving underserved populations. With few exceptions, the Shared Savings Program historically completes calculations of shared savings and shared losses and issues initial determinations of ACO financial performance approximately 8 months after the conclusion of the performance year, and shortly thereafter issues performance payments to ACOs eligible to share in savings.
We further explained in the proposed rule (89 FR 55174) that delayed use of CY 2023 data would also impair administration of the Shared Savings Program in 2024 and 2025. CY 2023 data are instrumental in determining factors used in the application cycle for ACOs applying to enter a new agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, and change request cycle for existing ACOs continuing their participation in the program for PY 2025. For instance, CY 2023 data will be used in the calculation of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of ACO participants and total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for purposes of identifying whether an ACO is high revenue or low revenue, as defined under § 425.20. The high/low revenue status is then used to determine an ACO's eligibility to receive advance investment payments to expand accountable care to underserved communities according to § 425.630, and an ACO's eligibility for the CMS Innovation Center's new ACO PC Flex Model for the January 1, 2025 start date. CY 2023 data will also be the basis for calculating the amount of required repayment mechanism arrangements for ACOs entering two-sided models for PY 2025. We explained that the proposed approach would help ensure the accuracy of the calculations used in determining ACO revenue status and repayment mechanism amounts. We noted that delays in the application cycle already underway could jeopardize our ability to timely issue application dispositions, execute participation agreements with eligible ACOs for the new agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, deliver PY 2025 initial assignment list reports, and timely deliver initial advance investment payments for newly eligible ACOs. Substantial delays in change
Finally, we explained (89 FR 55175) that modifications to Shared Savings Program financial methodology as proposed in the proposed rule would also necessitate delaying the delivery of final historical benchmark reports to ACOs. We expressed our recognition that delaying the availability of these program reports to ACOs could hamper ACOs' ability to set effective cost targets that may depend on the ACO's projected financial performance based on its benchmark value and that substantial delays in issuance of the historical benchmark reports to ACOs could make it more challenging for ACOs to effectively curb growth in Medicare FFS expenditures, a central aim of the Shared Savings Program.
Section 1871(b)(1) of the Act generally requires that Medicare rules must be proposed with a 60-day comment period. Section 1871(b)(2) of the Act provides that this requirement does not apply where a statute specifically permits a regulation to be issued in interim final form or otherwise with a shorter period for public comment; a statute establishes a specific deadline for the implementation of a provision and the deadline is less than 150 days after the date of the enactment of the statute in which the deadline is contained; or subsection (b) of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, does not apply under subparagraph (B) of such subsection. Subparagraph (B) of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) provides an exception to the requirement for an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the
We found that a 60-day comment period was both impracticable and contrary to the public interest (89 FR 55174 through 55176). For the reasons stated, we therefore reduced the comment period of the proposed rule to 30 days. We noted in the proposed rule that failing to use a 30-day comment period in lieu of a 60-day comment period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in part for the same reasons described in section II.B. of the proposed rule that failing to apply this rule retroactively to PY 2023 and PY 2024 would be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, we explained that failing to use the reduced comment period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the additional time would not substantially enhance the public's ability to participate in this rulemaking, and it would substantially impair CMS's ability to administer the Shared Savings Program, by delaying the following:
• Issuance of initial determinations of shared savings and shared losses to ACOs for PY 2023.
• Disbursement of PY 2023 earned performance payments to ACOs.
• Determination of ACO revenue status used in determining ACO eligibility for advance investment payments and eligibility for the ACO PC Flex Model, in connection with the application cycle for ACOs applying to enter a new agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025.
• Calculation of required amounts for repayment mechanism arrangements for ACOs entering a two-sided model for PY 2025 and the deadline for ACO submission of repayment mechanism documentation to CMS for review, to ensure compliance with related requirements.
• Calculation of final historical benchmarks for ACOs beginning an agreement period on January 1, 2024, and delivery of final historical benchmark reports to ACOs.
We noted that it would be contrary to the public interest for ACOs to be harmed by the delay in administration of the Shared Savings Program caused by the rule that intended to relieve them from the unexpected harm arising from SAHS billing activity (89 FR 55175). A 60-day comment period would have likely necessitated delaying these key operations until at least late 2024, substantially delaying these operations and related processes, which would harm ACOs and impair the operation of the Shared Savings Program and thwart the relief to ACOs that would otherwise be provided by this rule.
We explained that a substantial delay to initial determinations of shared savings and losses for PY 2023 and disbursement of earned performance payments would be financially ruinous to the many ACOs that rely on these payments to operate (89 FR 55175). For example, in PY 2022, 304 ACOs earned $2.52 billion in performance payments. Shared savings payments are the primary revenue source of ACOs. Many ACOs, particularly small, rural, and low revenue ACOs and those serving underserved populations, depend on receiving shared savings payments on a predictable annual schedule to continue operating. We noted that it is self-evident that enabling ACOs to continue to operate with minimal disruption is itself in the public interest and in particular is in the interest of Medicare beneficiaries whose care is coordinated by ACOs.
We explained that delaying adjudication of application and repayment mechanism decisions also would jeopardize or prevent CMS and ACOs starting performance year 2025 (89 FR 55175). CMS and ACOs cannot timely enter into agreements for the agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, jeopardizing the expansion of accountable care to underserved communities, stifling innovation in primary care payment reform and restricting ACOs' ability to meet requirements for entering or continuing their participation in a two-sided model for PY 2025. Phase 1 of the application period closed June 17, 2024.
Additionally, we noted that given the limited scope of the proposed rule, addressing a single issue through proposed changes to the Shared Savings Program regulations, a 30-day comment period was a reasonable amount of time for public inspection and comment (89 FR 55175). In advance of the SAHS billing activity proposed rule, many interested parties wrote to the Administrator requesting relief from SAHS billing activity, so they are familiar with this issue and would likely be ready to review the policy and impacts within the 30-day timeframe.
Furthermore, we explained that starting notice and comment rulemaking sooner to allow a 60-day comment period was impracticable (89 FR 55175 through 55176). As we described in the proposed rule, we could not have foreseen the SAHS billing activity in advance and were only able to determine that the increase in billing on HCPCS codes A4352 and A4353 in CY 2023 was significant, anomalous, and
The modifications to the Shared Savings Program financial methodology that we are finalizing in this final rule, following the 30-day comment period, will allow us to maintain timely adjudication of certain determinations of applicant ACOs' eligibility to participate under the advance investment payment option, or the ACO PC Flex Model, for an agreement period beginning on January 1, 2025, and timely finalization of repayment mechanism arrangements required for ACOs to enter or continue their participation in two-sided models for PY 2025. While our use of the 30-day comment period will minimize disruptions to timelines for certain milestones, we anticipate that the issuance of initial determinations and the disbursement of earned performance payments for PY 2023 will still be delayed by approximately 6 weeks. Where possible, we will work to reduce delays and will proactively communicate with ACOs about changes in timelines for these, or other, milestones.
A delay in the start of the Shared Savings Program's performance year also may have significant adverse consequences for ACO professionals participating in ACOs. Many Shared Savings Program tracks are Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs) for purposes of the Quality Payment Program APM incentive. Qualifying APM Participants (QPs) are not subject to the Merit-based Incentive Payment System reporting requirements or payment adjustments (though they may have separate and similar reporting obligations under the Shared Savings Program).
While we are unable to modify Shared Savings Program applications deadlines for the reasons described previously in this final rule, we were able to extend the deadline for ACOs to apply to the ACO PC Flex Model from August 1, 2024, until August 23, 2024, as this delay would not delay Shared Savings Program application dispositions or the start of the Model.
Furthermore, we are clarifying that we anticipate releasing PY2023 results in late October and making payments to ACOs in mid-November. Where possible, we will work to reduce delays and will proactively communicate with ACOs about changes in timelines.
In the proposed rule we explained that section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act prohibits a substantive change in Medicare regulations from taking effect before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the rule is issued or published (89 FR 55176). Section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act permits a substantive rule to take effect on a date that precedes the end of the 30-day period if the Secretary finds that a waiver of the 30-day period is necessary to comply with statutory requirements or that the application of the 30-day period is contrary to the public interest. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), similarly requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of a substantive final rule. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds good cause to support an earlier effective date, among other reasons. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). We indicated in the proposed rule that, if CMS were to finalize a rule based on the proposed rule, we would strongly consider reducing or waiving the 30-day delay in effective date under the provisions described previously to the extent that the delay in effective date would also harm ACOs or thwart the purpose of this provision by delaying our timely administration of the Shared Savings Program functions as described in section III.A of the proposed rule (89 FR 55176). We noted that this waiver would be in part for the same reasons that we reduced the comment period on the proposed rule from 60 days to 30 days, as described in section III.A. of the proposed rule. We requested comment on this approach, including a possible finding of good cause and how ACOs would be impacted by the delay.
The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses.
We find that the application of the 30-day period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. In conjunction with our application of this rule retroactively and the reduction of the proposed rule's comment period to 30 days, we have determined that, for us to timely adjudicate applicant ACOs' eligibility to participate under the advance investment payment option and the ACO PC Flex Model for agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2025, and timely finalize repayment mechanisms necessary for ACOs to participate in two-sided models for PY 2025, we must use expenditure and revenue calculations for CY 2023, adjusted to exclude all Medicare Parts A and B payment amounts on DMEPOS claims associated with HCPCS codes A4352 and A4353, to make certain initial determinations on ACO eligibility and determine final repayment mechanism amounts, and provide related information to ACOs no later than October 17, 2024.
Section 1899(e) of the Act provides that chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C., which includes such provisions as the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, shall not apply to the Shared Savings Program. Accordingly, we are not setting out any requirements and burden estimates under this section of the preamble. Please refer to section V. (Regulatory Impact Statement) of this final rule for a discussion of the impacts associated with the changes described in section II. (Provisions of the Regulations) of this preamble.
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 14094 entitled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (April 6, 2023), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Executive Order 14094 entitled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (hereinafter, the Modernizing E.O.) amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) must be prepared for rules that are significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Based on our estimates, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined this rulemaking is not significant per section 3(f)(1) as measured by the $200 million or more in any 1 year threshold. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $9.0 million to $47.0 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. As explained elsewhere in this section, while this final rule will help preserve the accuracy of shared savings and losses calculations for ACOs in the Shared Savings Program, the great majority of ACOs will experience at most a minimal impact on their PY 2023 financial outcome. We did not prepare an analysis for the RFA because we determined, and the Secretary certified, that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. As previously mentioned in this section of this final rule, all but a small fraction of ACOs will experience relatively minimal changes in their PY 2023 financial outcome. We did not prepare an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we determined, and the Secretary certified, that this final rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2024, that threshold is approximately $183 million. This rule imposes no mandates on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
In this final rule, we discuss the reasons that excluding payment amounts incurred in 2023 for two urinary catheter HCPCS codes
Preliminary estimates of PY 2023 performance after removing the specified codes, using three months of claims runout, and applying risk adjustment were used to update the impacts estimated for ACO shared savings and losses. These data were analyzed to estimate the marginal impact that catheter spending had on each ACO's performance. These marginal impact estimates continue to rely on analysis performed on preliminary data without final beneficiary assignment information and without 3 months of claims runout. Despite these remaining limitations, the precision in this analysis has increased relative to the analysis included in the proposed rule.
Billing for the specified codes was estimated in this study to have a nominal impact to overall shared savings (net of losses) across the mix of ACOs in PY 2023. The neutral overall impact exemplifies to the fact that billing for these specific codes was not correlated to any ability for an average ACO to actively manage the rapid growth. For most ACOs, the inclusion of the specified catheter codes did not substantially change their estimated financial outcome in PY 2023. When expressing projected shared savings (or losses) as a percentage of benchmark, the impact of spending in the specified codes on projected shared savings (or losses) was projected to be within +/-0.05 percent for 56 percent of ACOs, within +/-0.10 percent for 74 percent of ACOs, and within 0.15 percent for 83 percent of ACOs. However, the impacts would potentially be substantial at the tails of the distribution. Table 1 shows that failing to exclude the specified codes would increase the net earnings for one ACO in the study by an amount equivalent to 1.5 percent of benchmark spending relative to the policy we are finalizing to exclude the codes. At the other extreme, leaving in the specified codes was estimated to reduce earnings to another ACO by an amount equivalent to 2.4 percent of benchmark relative to the policy we are finalizing to exclude such specified codes. The impact estimated at these extremes highlights the benefit of the proposed policy to prevent highly suspect billing in the two specified codes from materially impacting outcomes in the program.
While providing a valid illustration of the impacts likely across the distribution of ACOs, a key component of the simulation relies on preliminary data for PY 2023 with less than 7 days of claims runout (specifically, the estimated marginal impact of catheter spending on each ACO's performance relative to benchmark) versus the 90 day claims runout used in financial reconciliation. Because of the limitations in the data used for this simulation, and because of the potential for the overall impact to be influenced by the proximity of individual ACO-level outcomes to the applicable minimum savings rate or minimum loss rate (particularly for large ACOs), a stochastic simulation was employed to generate a range of outcomes surrounding the best estimate. Assuming the marginal impact of catheter spending on ACO gross savings (expressed on percent of benchmark basis) would vary relative to data used in the analysis under a normal distribution with standard deviation equal to the higher of (a) 0.1 percentage points or (b) one-fourth of the absolute value of the marginal percentage impact estimated for the ACO using preliminary data, the impact of removing spending in the specified codes across all ACOs combined was estimated to be roughly budget neutral on average, ranging from a $10 million decrease at the 10th percentile to a $20 million dollar increase at the 90th percentile.
Certain policies, including both existing policies and the new policy described in this final rule, rely upon the authority granted in section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to use other payment models that the Secretary determines will improve the quality and efficiency of items and services furnished under the Medicare program, and that do not result in program expenditures greater than those that would result under the statutory payment model. By preventing SAHS spending growth in the two catheter codes from disrupting the accuracy and fairness of shared savings and loss outcomes for ACOs in the 2023 performance year, the policy furthers the goals of quality and efficiency by protecting the validity and integrity of the program's incentive for quality and efficiency. The provisions of this final rule, together with all existing program policies (including but not limited to those requiring authority granted in section 1899(i)(3) of the Act), result in a program that is expected to improve the quality and efficiency of items and services furnished under the Medicare program and is not expected to result in a situation in which the payment methodology under the Shared Savings Program, including all policies adopted under the authority of section 1899(i) of the Act, results in more spending under the program than would have resulted under the statutory payment methodology in section 1899(d) of the Act.
In the CY 2023 PFS final rule, we estimated that the projected impact of the payment methodology that incorporates all policies finalized by that final rule would result in $4.9 billion in greater program savings compared to a hypothetical baseline payment methodology that excluded the policies that required section 1899(i)(3) of the Act authority (see 87 FR 70195 and 70196). The marginal impact of the changes in the CY 2024 PFS final rule were estimated to lower net spending by $330 million over the 10-year window for all new policies combined, including the cap an ACO's regional service area risk score growth, the addition of a new third step to the beneficiary assignment methodology, and the revised approach to identify the assignable beneficiary population (88 FR 79496). The marginal impact of the changes in this final rule are estimated to be budget neutral for the 2023 performance year, with a range
We will continue to reexamine this projection in the future to ensure that the requirement under section 1899(i)(3)(B) of the Act that an alternative payment model not result in additional program expenditures continues to be satisfied. Additional Shared Savings Program data beginning to accumulate after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, along with emerging information on the characteristics of new entrants in the Shared Savings Program for agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2024 and January 1, 2025, are anticipated to gradually improve our ability to reevaluate program impacts in a comprehensive fashion. In the event that we later determine that the payment model that includes policies established under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act no longer meets this requirement, we will undertake additional notice and comment rulemaking to make adjustments to the payment model to assure continued compliance with the statutory requirements.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this final rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on September 23, 2024.
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR part 425 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1395hh, and 1395jjj.
(a)
(b)
(1) A4352 (Intermittent urinary catheter; Coude (curved) tip, with or without coating (Teflon, silicone, silicone elastomeric, or hydrophilic, etc.), each); and
(2) A4353 (Intermittent urinary catheter, with insertion supplies).
(c)
(1) Calculation of Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures for an ACO's assigned beneficiaries for all purposes including the following: Establishing, adjusting, updating, and resetting the ACO's historical benchmark and determining performance year expenditures.
(2) Calculation of fee-for-service expenditures for assignable beneficiaries as used in determining county-level fee-for-service expenditures and national Medicare fee-for-service expenditures, including the following calculations:
(i) Determining average county fee-for-service expenditures based on expenditures for the assignable population of beneficiaries in each county in the ACO's regional service area according to §§ 425.601(c) and 425.654(a) for purposes of calculating the ACO's regional fee-for-service expenditures.
(ii) Determining the 99th percentile of national Medicare fee-for-service expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of the following:
(A) Truncating assigned beneficiary expenditures used in calculating benchmark expenditures under § 425.652(a)(4), and performance year expenditures under §§ 425.605(a)(3) and 425.610(a)(4).
(B) Truncating expenditures for assignable beneficiaries in each county for purposes of determining county fee-for-service expenditures according to §§ 425.601(c)(3) and 425.654(a)(3).
(C) Truncating expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of determining truncated national per capita fee-for service expenditures for purposes of calculating the ACPT according to § 425.660(b)(3).
(iii) Determining truncated national per capita fee-for-service Medicare expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of calculating the ACPT according to § 425.660(b)(3).
(iv) Determining national per capita expenditures for Parts A and B services under the original Medicare fee-for-service program for assignable beneficiaries for purposes of capping the regional adjustment to the ACO's historical benchmark according to § 425.656(c)(3) and capping the prior savings adjustment according to § 425.658(c)(1)(ii).
(v) Determining national growth rates that are used as part of the blended growth rates used to trend forward BY1 and BY2 expenditures to BY3 according to § 425.652(a)(5)(ii) and as part of the blended growth rates used to update the benchmark according to §§ 425.601(b)(2) and 425.652(b)(2)(i).
(3) Calculation of Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service revenue of ACO participants for purposes of calculating the ACO's loss recoupment limit under the BASIC track as specified in § 425.605(d).
(4) Calculation of total Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service revenue of ACO participants and total Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for purposes of identifying whether an ACO is a high revenue ACO or low revenue ACO, as defined under § 425.20, and determining an ACO's eligibility to
(5) Calculation or recalculation of the amount of the ACO's repayment mechanism arrangement according to § 425.204(f)(4).
(d)
(e)
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing this final rule to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to make needed editorial changes.
Effective: September 27, 2024.
Mr. Thomas O'Linn, Procurement Analyst, at 202-445-0390 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or
This final rule amends the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to make needed technical amendments to update erroneous clause dates.
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 552 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial harvest of snowy grouper in South Atlantic Federal waters. NMFS projects commercial landings of snowy grouper will reach the commercial quota for the July through December season. Therefore, NMFS closes Federal waters in the South Atlantic for the commercial harvest of snowy grouper to protect the resource.
This temporary rule is effective from September 29, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
Rick Devictor, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, phone: 727-204-5518, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes snowy grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights described in this temporary rule are in gutted weight.
The commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for snowy grouper in 2024 is 106,174 pounds (lb) or 48,160 kilograms (kg). The commercial ACL is divided into two commercial quotas, with a separate quota for each 6-month fishing season. Seventy percent of the commercial ACL is allocated for the January through June commercial fishing season and that quota is 74,322 lb (33,712 kg) for 2024. The remaining 30 percent of the commercial ACL for the July through December fishing season is a quota of 31,852 lb (14,448 kg) for 2024 [50 CFR 622.190(a)(1)(i)(B) and (ii)(B)]. Any commercial quota remaining from the first season is added to the commercial quota in second season, but any commercial quota remaining from the second season is not carried forward into the next fishing year. The January through June quota was projected to be reached on June 4, 2024, and commercial harvest was closed (89 FR 47871, June 4, 2024). Subsequently, updated commercial harvest information showed that 8,035 lb (3,645 kg) of that quota was not harvested, and it was added to the 2024 commercial quota for the July through December season.
Under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper when the commercial quota specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(1) is reached or is projected to be reached. NMFS projects that commercial landings of snowy grouper will reach the commercial quota for the 2024 July
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having snowy grouper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such snowy grouper before September 29, 2024. During the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of snowy grouper taken from South Atlantic Federal waters is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of snowy grouper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold before September 29, 2024, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. The recreational harvest of snowy grouper is also closed for the rest of 2024 [50 CFR 622.183(b)(8)], and therefore, the bag and possession limits of snowy grouper harvested in or from the South Atlantic are zero.
For a person on a vessel issued a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions during the commercial closure for snowy grouper apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in State or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 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 as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial quota and accountability measures for South Atlantic snowy grouper have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial closure for the remainder of the July through December fishing season this year. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the commercial closure to protect South Atlantic snowy grouper, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest that exceeds the commercial quota.
For the reasons just stated, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of New Jersey is transferring a portion of their 2024 commercial bluefish quota to the State of North Carolina. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2024 commercial bluefish quotas for New Jersey and North Carolina.
Effective September 26, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336.
Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2024 allocations were published on January 2, 2024 (89 FR 34).
The final rule implementing amendment 1 to the FMP, as published in the
New Jersey is transferring 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) to North Carolina through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to ensure North Carolina would not exceed its 2024 state quota. The revised bluefish quotas for 2024 are: New Jersey, 148,898 lb (67,539 kg) and North Carolina, 965,996 lb (438,168 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
This document informs the public that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is withdrawing the proposed rule titled Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) that published in the
As of September 27, 2024, the proposed rule published on May 10, 2016, at 81 FR 28738-28758, is officially withdrawn.
SNAP Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314.
John Noble, Branch Chief, Modernization and Integration Branch, Program Development Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314, 703-305-2022.
The decision to withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the current D-SNAP regulations is allowable due to the authority granted by § 412 of the Stafford Act and § 5(h)(1) the Food and Nutrition Act (FNA) of 2008. The Stafford Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to approve D-SNAP operations when affected areas receive a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for Individual Assistance (IA) and commercial channels of food distribution are available. The FNA permits the Secretary to establish temporary emergency standards for program eligibility during a disaster without regard to section 4(c) of the FNA or the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (Sec. 553 of title 5 of the U.S. Code). This means that if an unusual disaster situation warranted unique eligibility standards, the Department may establish separate eligibility standards for that disaster.
This action withdraws a proposed rule published in the
During the proposed rule's 60-day comment period ending March 7, 2016, FNS received 19 comments. The comments were submitted by various entities, including advocate organizations; individuals that identified as SNAP participants; individuals that did not identify with a State agency or organization; and State/local government agencies. The comments were generally supportive of the proposed rule and current guidance.
Despite the support for the proposed rule, there have been significant changes to the program design resulting from the COVID-19 public health emergency. The public health emergency, which began on January 31, 2020, and ended on May 11, 2023, highlighted the need for regulatory flexibility to adapt to new programmatic challenges.
Historically, State agencies operate D-SNAPs via an in-person application and interview process. During the public health emergency, State agencies faced unprecedented challenges to protect the health and safety of households and staff while responding to more frequent natural disasters. The Department approved novel virtual D-SNAP components to ensure social distancing and leveraged regulatory flexibility to meet household needs. The regulatory flexibility allows the Department to tailor D-SNAP responses on a case-by-case basis to maintain program integrity and equitable access. Additionally, feedback solicited during D-SNAP listening sessions contributes to the decision to withdraw this rule.
The Department would not be responsive to household needs under the proposed rule. Household safety, supply chain issues, and other changing circumstances during the public health emergency demanded the Department adapt traditional D-SNAP operations. Under the proposed rule, FNS would have been restricted from enacting many of the successful responses utilized during the public health emergency to best serve households.
Allowing virtual components in D-SNAP operations is a significant deviation from the design outlined in the proposed rule. The Department is also currently evaluating the use of virtual components in D-SNAP operations. Withdrawing this rule allows the Department to fully evaluate the responses implemented during the public health emergency and reconsider future disaster response needs and rulemaking.
The Department solicited feedback from external partners on the planning, requesting, and operating of D-SNAP in February 2023. Over three listening sessions, FNS explored ways to improve meeting the immediate needs of families following a disaster, with the aim to improve existing D-SNAP guidance. FNS held separate sessions for community partners, electronic benefit transfer (EBT) vendors, and State agencies administering SNAP. During these sessions, participants provided valuable insight into what is working well with D-SNAP and what could be improved moving forward. Overall, the feedback from participants in these listening sessions highlighted the benefits of maintaining flexibility in disaster response requirements.
After reviewing feedback received through listening sessions and comments on the proposed rule, and considering program flexibility during the public health emergency, the Department has determined that the proposed rule to revise the current disaster regulations should not be finalized. In withdrawing this proposed rule, the Department reaffirms its longstanding D-SNAP operation policies and practices, authorized by § 412 of the Stafford Act and § 5(h)(1) of the FNA. The Department acknowledges that the flexibility afforded by current practices and D-SNAP guidance are critical to reducing the burden on needy households and State agencies who are responding to the aftermath of a disaster.
The Department agrees with the issues raised by many commenters and will use this feedback to inform any necessary updates to D-SNAP guidance. The Department no longer believes that finalizing this now outdated rule would allow for maximum flexibility in disaster response or sufficiently address the comments on the proposed rule. Accordingly, the proposed rule to revise D-SNAP regulations published in the
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Potato Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2024-2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.002 to $0.003 per hundredweight of potatoes handled under the marketing order. The proposed assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by October 28, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments can be sent to the Docket Clerk, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237. Comments can also be submitted to the Docket Clerk electronically by Email:
Gregory A. Breasher, Marketing Specialist, or Barry M. Broadbent, Chief, Northwest Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2282, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 98 and Marketing Order No. 945, both as amended (7 CFR part 945), regulating the handling of potatoes grown in certain counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon. Part 945 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and comprises producers and handlers of potatoes operating within the area of production.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This proposed action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires Federal agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608(c)(15)(A)), any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate for Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes handled under the Order from $0.002 per hundredweight, the rate that was established for the 2017-2018 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods (82 FR 28550), to $0.003 per hundredweight for the 2024-2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods.
Sections 945.41 and 945.42 of the Order authorize the Committee, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are able to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2017-2018 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $0.002 per hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes within the production area (82 FR 28550). That rate continues in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period until modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to AMS.
The Committee met on June 5, 2024, and unanimously recommended 2024-2025 fiscal period expenditures of $99,522 and an assessment rate of $0.003 per hundredweight of Idaho Eastern-Oregon potatoes handled for the 2024-2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. In comparison, the budgeted expenditures for fiscal period 2023-2024 were $99,703. The proposed assessment rate of $0.003 per hundredweight is $0.001 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to better align assessment revenue with budgeted expenses and to replenish reserves which were depleted between August 2017 and June 2024. The Committee estimates shipments for the 2024-2025 season to be approximately 34,000,000 hundredweight, an increase from the 28,167,500 hundredweight handled for the 2023-2024 fiscal period.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024-2025 fiscal period include $75,489 in administrative expenses; $10,013 for operational expenses; $4,670 for insurance/banking expenses; $4,000 for annual audit/compliance expenses; $2,950 for committee travel expenses and $2,400 for IT support. For comparison, budgeted expenses for these items during the 2023-2024 fiscal period were $74,960, $10,013, $4,880, $4,500, $2,950, and $2,400, respectively.
The expected 34,000,000 hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes from the 2024-2025 crop would generate $102,000 in assessment revenue at the proposed assessment rate (34,000,000 hundredweight of potatoes multiplied by $0.003 assessment rate). The assessment rate increase should be appropriate to ensure the Committee has sufficient revenue to fully fund its recommended 2024-2025 fiscal period budgeted expenditures and begin replenishing the Committee's reserve funds to a level that the Committee believes is appropriate.
The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated fiscal period expenses, expected shipments of potatoes, and the amount of funds available in the financial reserve. Income derived from handler assessments ($102,000) would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses ($99,522). Funds available in the financial reserve (currently about $80,000) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as authorized in § 945.44).
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information. Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2024-2025 fiscal period budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by AMS.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 450 producers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes in the production area and 32 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34,000,000 (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities), and small agricultural producers of potatoes as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $4,250,000 (NAICS code 111211, Potato Farming) (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average annual producer price
According to AMS Market News data, the reported average free on board (FOB) price for potatoes from Idaho-Eastern Oregon over the 2021-2022 fiscal period was $15.68 per 50-pound carton, depending upon variety, size and grade, and shipping date. Multiplying this figure by 2 (to adjust to hundredweight) yields an average FOB price of $31.36 per hundredweight for the 2021-2022 fiscal period. Multiplying the 2021-2022 Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato production of 28,167,500 hundredweight by the estimated average price per hundredweight of $31.36 equals $883,332,800. Dividing this figure by 32 regulated handlers yields estimated average annual handler receipts of $27,604,150 ($883,332,800 divided by 32 handlers), which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, according to the above data and assuming a normal distribution, most of the producers, and many of the handlers, of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes may be classified as small entities.
This proposal would increase the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2024-2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.002 to $0.003 per hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2024-2025 fiscal period expenditures of $99,522 and an assessment rate of $0.003 per hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.003 is $0.001 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee expects the industry to handle 34,000,000 hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes during the 2024-2025 fiscal period. Thus, the $0.003 per hundredweight rate should provide $102,000 in assessment income (34,000,000 hundredweight multiplied by $0.003). The Committee expects that income generated from handler assessments should be sufficient to meet budgeted expenditures for the 2024-2025 fiscal period.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024-2025 fiscal period include $75,489 in administrative expenses; $10,013 for operational expenses; $4,670 for insurance/banking expenses; $4,000 for annual audit/compliance expenses; $2,950 for committee travel expenses and $2,400 for IT support. For comparison, budgeted expenses for these items during the 2023-2024 fiscal period were $74,960, $10,013, $4,880, $4,500, $2,950, and $2,400, respectively.
In recent years, the Committee has utilized reserve funds to partially fund its budgeted expenditures. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to fully fund 2024-2025 fiscal period budgeted expenditures and replenish funds held in its reserve. This action would add an estimated $2,478 to the Committee's financial reserve fund. The reserve balance would be kept at a level that the Committee believes is appropriate and which is compliant with the provisions of the Order.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate recommendation, the Committee discussed various alternatives, including maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.002 per hundredweight and increasing the assessment rate by different amounts. However, the Committee determined that the recommended assessment rate would fully fund budgeted expenses and replenish reserves to appropriate levels. The assessment rate of $0.003 per hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the projected volume of assessable Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes, the projected monetary balance held in reserve, and additional pertinent factors.
A review of NASS information indicates that the average producer price for the 2021-2022 fiscal period was $12.50 per hundredweight of potatoes in the production area. Therefore, utilizing the proposed assessment rate of $0.003 per hundredweight, assessment revenue for the 2021-2022 fiscal period, as a percentage of total producer revenue, would have been approximately 0.024 percent of total producer revenue ($0.003 divided by $12.50 multiplied by 100).
This proposed action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.
The Committee's meetings are widely publicized throughout the production area. The Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 5, 2024, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies and to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this rulemaking.
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 945 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2024, an assessment rate of $0.003 per hundredweight is established for Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 (Cyber Security—Internal Network Security Monitoring), which the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), submitted in response to a Commission directive. In addition, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC develop certain modifications to proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 to extend internal network security monitoring to include electronic access control or monitoring systems and physical access control systems outside of the electronic security perimeter.
Comments are due November 26, 2024.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways. Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
○
○
The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more detailed filing procedures.
1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. In Order No. 887, the Commission directed that NERC develop new or modified CIP Reliability Standards that require INSM for CIP-networked environments for all high impact bulk electric system (BES) Cyber Systems
3. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 is not, however, fully responsive to the Commission's directive to implement INSM for the “CIP-networked environment.”
4. Section 215 of the FPA provides that the Commission may certify an ERO, the purpose of which is to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.
5. INSM is a subset of network security monitoring that is applied within a “trust zone,”
6. INSM is designed to address as early as possible situations where perimeter network defenses are breached by detecting intrusions and malicious activity within a trust zone. INSM consists of three stages: (1) collection; (2) detection; and (3) analysis. Taken together, these three stages provide the benefit of early detection and alerting of intrusions and malicious activity.
7. On January 19, 2023, in Order No. 887, the Commission issued a final rule that directed that NERC develop “new or modified CIP Reliability Standards requiring INSM for all high impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity to ensure the detection of anomalous network activity indicative of an attack in progress.”
8. The Commission explained that the currently effective CIP Reliability Standards focus on preventing unauthorized access at the electronic security perimeter and do not require INSM inside trusted CIP-networked environments.
9. The Commission directed that NERC ensure that the new or modified CIP Reliability Standards address three security objectives for east-west network traffic. First, the new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should address the need for each responsible entity to develop a baseline for their network activity by analyzing for security purposes their network traffic and data flows. Second, the new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should address the need for responsible entities to monitor and detect “unauthorized activity, connections, devices, network communication protocols, and software” in the CIP-networked environment. Third, the new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should provide responsible entities with flexibility in determining how to best identify anomalous activity with a high level of confidence, so long as the methods ensure: (1) logging of network traffic; (2) maintaining the logs, and other data collected, regarding network traffic that are of “sufficient data fidelity to draw meaningful conclusions” to investigate an incident; and (3) maintaining the integrity of the logs and other data by employing measures that minimize the likelihood of an attacker removing evidence of their tactics, techniques, and procedures.
10. On June 24, 2024, NERC submitted for Commission approval proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 and the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date.
11. NERC explains that the proposed Reliability Standard would address the directives in Order No. 887 by establishing three requirements for responsible entities to implement INSM systems and processes. Specifically:
•
•
•
According to NERC, Requirement R1 applies to data flows within “networks protected by the Responsible Entity's Electronic Security Perimeter(s).”
12. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The proposed Reliability Standard requires responsible entities to implement INSM within the electronic security perimeter for all high impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity. Consistent with the security objectives identified in Order No. 887, Requirement R1 of the proposed Standard would require responsible entities to implement INSM by mandating the collection, detection, analysis of and appropriate response to anomalous activity within the electronic security perimeter. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1, Requirement R2 would require responsible entities to retain INSM data related to anomalous activity. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1, Requirement R3 would require responsible entities to protect INSM data associated with anomalous network activity.
13. Implementation of INSM within the electronic security perimeter will augment responsible entities' ability to detect anomalous or malicious activity and provide information to assist in determining an appropriate response through proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1, Requirements R1, R2, and R3. The proposed Reliability Standard improves the security posture of the industry by providing visibility into east-west communications absent from previous Reliability Standards, improving the probability of detection for anomalous or malicious activity within the electronic security perimeter.
14. Notwithstanding the improvements to security made by the proposed Standard, as discussed below, the proposed Reliability Standard does not fully implement the scope of protection contemplated in Order No. 887. By restricting the implementation of INSM to within the electronic security perimeter, a reliability and security gap remains by not implementing INSM for the entire CIP-networked environment,
15. NERC's proposed application of the term “CIP-networked environment” as limited to assets and systems within the electronic security perimeter is overly narrow. Order No. 887 used the term “CIP-networked environment” purposefully to apply more broadly than the electronic security perimeter, specifically to include all assets and systems to which the CIP standards apply and may be the targets of attacks. As explained below, NERC's petition does not address that reliability and security gap because it does not require implementation of INSM at EACMS and PACS outside the electronic security perimeter.
16. Excluding EACMS and PACS from the term “CIP-networked environment” is inconsistent with generally accepted approaches to cybersecurity. Under Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a and fundamental cybersecurity practices, similar systems within a network are grouped together to facilitate management, control, and monitoring of the networked environment.
17. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance states that INSM monitoring needs to detect “[a]ny threat that is already inside of a network [that] can move laterally and remain undetected for days or even months.”
18. Further, we find NERC's rationale for limiting INSM to within the electronic security perimeter unpersuasive. First, NERC contends that the devices supporting reliable operation are contained within the electronic security perimeter and thus industry resources are most effectively focused on data flows within the electronic security perimeter.
19. Second, NERC avers that requiring INSM implementation outside the electronic security perimeter could have the unintended effect of impeding an entity's ability to detect and respond to threats to their most critical systems due to alarm and alert fatigue from large volumes of generated data.
20. Third, NERC asserts that requiring INSM implementation outside the electronic security perimeter would not promote security and reliability inside the CIP-networked environment or that the cost of doing so would outweigh associated benefits.
21. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop modifications to proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 that would extend INSM to include EACMS and PACS outside the electronic security perimeter. We also propose directing NERC to submit the revised Reliability Standard for Commission approval within 12 months of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.
22. The FERC-725B information collection requirements are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Commission solicits comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
23. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the additional paperwork burden presented by the proposed revision to Reliability Standard CIP-015-1 as this is a new proposed Reliability Standard. Reliability Standards are objective-based and allow entities to choose compliance approaches best tailored to their systems. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of July 2024, identifies approximately 1,636 unique U.S. entities that are subject to mandatory compliance with CIP Reliability Standards. Of this total, we estimate that 400 entities will face an increased paperwork burden under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-015-1. Based on these assumptions, we estimate the following reporting burden:
The hourly cost for wages is based in part on the average of the occupational categories from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (
Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): $162.66.
Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $79.31.
Office and Administrative Support (Occupation Code: 43-0000): $48.59.
($162.66 + $79.31 + $48.59) ÷ 3 = $96.85.
The figure is rounded to $97.00 for use in calculating wage figures in this NOPR.
24. The responses and burden hours for Years 1-3 will total respectively as follows:
• Year 1-3 each: 2,400 responses; 136,000 hours.
• The annual cost burden for each year One to Three is $13,192,000.
25.
26. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
27. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
28. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
29. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 26, 2024. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM24-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
30. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
31. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
32. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier or other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
33. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
34. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
35. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Withdrawal of finding and notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document withdraws FinCEN's finding that ABLV Bank AS (ABLV) is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern and the related notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to impose the fifth special measure regarding ABLV, pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (section 311). Because of material subsequent developments that have mitigated the money laundering risks associated with ABLV, FinCEN has determined ABLV is no longer a financial institution of primary money laundering concern that warrants the implementation of a special measure under section 311.
The finding and notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 83 FR 6986 (Feb. 16, 2018), are withdrawn as of September 27, 2024.
Mail: Global Investigations Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183.
The FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
The five special measures enumerated under section 311 are safeguards that may be employed to defend the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The Secretary may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from such threats. Through special measures one through four, the Secretary may impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and information reporting requirements on covered domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies—collectively, “covered financial institutions”.
On February 16, 2018, FinCEN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that (1) set forth FinCEN's finding that ABLV, a commercial bank located in Riga, Latvia, was, at that time, a foreign financial institution of primary money laundering concern and (2) proposed imposing special measure five under section 311, prohibiting covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining in the United States correspondent accounts for, or on behalf of, ABLV.
In light of significant developments since FinCEN issued that NPRM, FinCEN has now determined that ABLV is no longer a financial institution that is of primary money laundering concern.
On February 23, 2018 (one week after FinCEN issued its NPRM), the European Central Bank (ECB) determined that ABLV—as well as its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg—was failing or likely to fail, noting that, following issuance of FinCEN's NPRM, ABLV had experienced an abrupt wave of deposit withdrawals and increasing lack of access to U.S. dollar funding.
As a consequence of the ECB's determination and subsequent action by relevant national authorities, ABLV and its subsidiary began winding up shortly afterwards. On June 12, 2018, ABLV—with the approval of FCMC—entered irrevocable liquidation, formally changing its name to ABLV Bank-in-Liquidation.
Significantly, since July 2018, ABLV-in-Liquidation has undergone a strictly supervised liquidation process, closely monitored by the Government of Latvia, which ensures AML/CFT compliance. Throughout the process (which is at an advanced stage), Latvian authorities have kept FinCEN apprised of ABLV's liquidation with updates on the authorities' role in: (1) supervising the liquidation; (2) approving updates to the liquidation methodologies for verifying creditors and ensuring AML/CFT and sanctions compliance; (3) reviewing the liquidators' submitted reports; and (4) monitoring ABLV creditors' claims.
Further, under liquidation, ABLV has engaged in minimal ongoing activity, continues to exist as a legal entity to solely conclude liquidation, and is conducting, and subject to, ongoing efforts to identify additional past illicit activity. Notably, the ongoing efforts to identify additional past illicit activity—comprised of administrative and criminal investigations by relevant Latvian authorities into the activities of the bank and its shareholders—underscore the gravity with which Latvian authorities are treating the matter. Of note, those investigations have already resulted in criminal charges against the owners and senior managers of ABLV,
Given the revocation of ABLV's licenses, significant efforts to identify and address past illicit activity, and the advanced stage of liquidation of ABLV, ABLV-in-Liquidation is no longer a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.
In parallel with targeted efforts relating to ABLV, the Government of Latvia has also made notable progress with a series of meaningful legal and regulatory reforms in its financial sector since issuance of FinCEN's NPRM that have substantially reduced non-resident deposit activity, a principal source of FinCEN's money laundering concern, and strengthened both its AML/CFT authorities and institutional capacity. In particular, in April 2018, the Government of Latvia took the first of many actions to remediate AML/CFT regime weaknesses and compliance failures by prohibiting most transactions with shell companies.
In 2021, the Government of Latvia implemented further changes to its Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism and Proliferation Financing, including: (1) expanding the scope of AML/CFT regulations and oversight to cover additional types of businesses and legal entities; (2) including real estate agents and brokers as entities obligated to follow AML/CFT requirements; (3) requiring continuous and ongoing training for those entities with AML/CFT obligations; (4) requiring that beneficial owners cannot have been convicted of international crimes or crimes against the state; (5) expanding upon the risk assessment triggers used by financial institutions; and (6) adopting new tools and software to assist with due diligence and the filing for suspicious transaction reports.
The Government of Latvia and the ECB have also added additional rules to assess the suitability of individuals to own or run a bank (
As a result of these and other efforts by the Government of Latvia, the share of non-resident deposits in Latvia's financial sector—one of the principal risk factors in Latvia's private sector that existed at the time of publication of the
For the reasons set forth above and taking into account the Government of Latvia's significant efforts to reform its AML/CFT regime, FinCEN is satisfied that ABLV no longer poses a money laundering threat to the U.S. financial system. Therefore, FinCEN hereby withdraws its finding that ABLV is of primary money laundering concern and the related NPRM published on February 16, 2018, seeking to impose special measure five regarding ABLV.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These revisions (1) certify the adequacy of the SIP to satisfy the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the reclassification of the Greater Connecticut area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and (2) certify the emission statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the initial nonattainment designations and the reclassification to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2024-0193 at
Bob McConnell, Air Quality Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, email:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On May 22, 2023, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted three revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing action on two of these revisions in this notice as described below.
The first SIP revision certifies the adequacy of the SIP to satisfy the NNSR permitting requirements of the CAA for the reclassification of the Greater Connecticut area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Effective November 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see 87 FR 60897). Although CT DEEP had previously submitted and EPA had approved a NNSR certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS initial classification of marginal nonattainment for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area (see 87 FR 38284, July 28, 2022), EPA's reclassification requires that the state recertify the adequacy of its NNSR program under the moderate nonattainment area requirements. With one exception, explained in more detail below, EPA retained the NNSR requirements for its implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are codified in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR program requirements include those promulgated in the “Phase 2 Rule” implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (See 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) and the 2008 ozone implementation rule. Additionally, although the 2015 ozone implementation rule included a provision to explicitly allow for inter-pollutant trading for meeting the emissions offset requirement for ozone, this provision was subsequently vacated by
The second SIP revision certifies that Connecticut's emission statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the initial nonattainment designations and the reclassification to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
CAA Section 182(a)(3)(B) applies to stationary sources that emit NO
The entire State of Connecticut was designated as nonattainment for ozone for the 1-hour, 1979 ozone NAAQS and each subsequent ozone NAAQS, including the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Beginning with its initial emission statement program SIP filing on January 12, 1993 (approved on January 10, 1995; 60 FR 2524), Connecticut administered its emission statement program under the record keeping and reporting requirements of section 22a-174-4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA). RCSA section 22a-174-4 was repealed effective October 28, 2022, and replaced with RCSA section 22a-174-4a. RCSA section 22a-174-4a retains the elements necessary to administer the emission statement program in RCSA section 22a-174-4a(b)(1). On November 17, 2022, Connecticut submitted RCSA section 22a-174-4a (Source monitoring, record keeping and reporting) to EPA as a SIP revision to replace RCSA section 22a-174-4. This revision was approved into the SIP by final rule published July 8, 2024 (89 FR 55888), and associated correction notice published July 23, 2024 (89 FR 59620).
Connecticut's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program, established in RCSA sections 22a-174-1 (definitions) and 22a-174-3a (applicability and substantive requirements), applies to the construction and modification of stationary sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In Connecticut's May 22, 2023, SIP revision, the State certifies that the version of RCSA Sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a in the current SIP meet the federal NNSR requirements for the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area. EPA has, however, revised the Connecticut SIP twice since Connecticut's May 2023 certification: on October 5, 2023 (see 88 FR 60591) and November 15, 2023 (see 89 FR 9771). The October 5, 2023, revisions address, among other things, finalizing the incorporation by reference of the provisions regulating NSR permitting, updating the CT DEEP's NSR procedural requirements, and adding to substantive review criteria for CT DEEP's minor NSR permitting process. The November 15, 2023, SIP revision approved Connecticut's revised definition of “severe non-attainment area for ozone,” contained in RCSA 22a-174-1 as amended by the State of Connecticut on November 13, 2023, expanding the more stringent severe nonattainment area to include all of Middlesex and New Haven counties. These changes do not impact the certification criteria in 40 CFR 51.165 as it relates to the NNSR program in the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area and thus we find it appropriate to propose approval of the certification despite the subsequent rulemaking changes. In Connecticut's certification, the State provides a side-by-side comparison demonstrating the State's rules are at least as stringent as EPA's nonattainment new source review permitting program requirements.
Connecticut's SIP-approved NNSR regulation contains the NNSR requirements applicable to serious and severe nonattainment areas. The term “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” is defined to include “all towns within the State of Connecticut, except those towns located in the severe non-attainment area for ozone.” This is the portion of the State that was historically part of the serious Greater Connecticut nonattainment area designated for the one-hour ozone NAAQS, however it no longer includes all of Middlesex and New Haven counties, as those areas are now part of the severe nonattainment area. The SIP's definition of “Major stationary source” then uses these terms to define the NO
Connecticut's NNSR SIP also properly addresses the thresholds for NO
As described above, Connecticut currently implements its emissions statement program under RCSA section 22a-174-4a. This regulation contains the elements necessary to administer the emission statement program in RCSA section 22a-174-4a(b)(1). On November 17, 2022, Connecticut submitted RCSA section 22a-174-4a (Source monitoring, record keeping and reporting) to EPA as a SIP revision to replace RCSA section 22a-174-4. This revision was approved into the SIP by final rule published July 8, 2024 (89 FR 55888), and associated correction notice published July 23, 2024 (89 FR 59620).
Connecticut's emission statement program supports development of the state's emissions inventory of ozone precursors, and requires, consistent
In addition, other sources that may have actual emissions of NO
At any other time that CT DEEP becomes aware of a source for which the owner is not submitting an annual emission statement but that may emit actual emissions greater than or equal to 25 tons per year of NO
EPA is proposing approval of portions of Connecticut's May 23, 2023, SIP submittal. Specifically, we are proposing approval of the portion of that submittal that addresses the NNSR requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area, finding the applicable NNSR provisions of Connecticut's regulations satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and CAA's anti-backsliding requirements implemented at 40 CFR 51.1105. Additionally, we are also proposing to approve Connecticut's May 23, 2023, SIP revision request addressing certification that Connecticut's emission statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the initial nonattainment designations and the reclassification to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the
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.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 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 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 communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 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.” 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.”
Connecticut DEEP 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. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral or positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the 2006 PM
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2024-0117 at
Ayla Martinelli, Air Quality Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1057, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
EPA has established NAAQS for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, known as PM
Hereafter, “New Haven-Fairfield” means the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT maintenance area which is comprised of New Haven and Fairfield Counties. EPA promulgated the designations for New Haven-Fairfield as a PM
In the LMP submittal, CT DEEP indicates that it is seeking approval of the LMP for both the 2006 24-hour standard as well as the 1997 annual standard. However, as explained in the PM
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a revision to the SIP that provides for maintenance of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after an area is redesignated to attainment. Section 175A also requires that eight years into the first maintenance period, the state must submit a second maintenance plan demonstrating that the area will continue to attain for the following 10-year period.
EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing maintenance plans.
Most recently, in October 2022, EPA released guidance extending this streamlined option for demonstrating maintenance under CAA section 175A to certain PM
The PM
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Under that provision, conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.
While qualification for the LMP option does not exempt an area from the need to determine conformity, in an area with an adequate or approved LMP, conformity may be demonstrated for a transportation plan or a transportation improvement program without a regional emissions analysis for the relevant NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However, transportation plan and transportation improvement program conformity determinations that meet applicable requirements continue to be required in these areas (see table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109). The areas also remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, including fulfilling project-level conformity analyses requirements and consultation requirements. In addition, an LMP must demonstrate that it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying area would experience enough growth in on-road emissions during the maintenance period such that a violation of the relevant NAAQS would occur (40 CFR 93.109(e)). Furthermore, consistent with the PM
Along with this proposed action, EPA is initiating an adequacy process for the New Haven and Fairfield LMP.
The general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214) applies to nonattainment areas and redesignated attainment areas operating under maintenance plans (
EPA redesignated New Haven- Fairfield to attainment of the PM
EPA proposes
We also propose to find that the CT DEEP LMP submittal satisfies transportation conformity regulations under the LMP option. Connecticut holds annual transportation conformity interagency consultation meetings which include Federal, State, and local agencies. Additionally, the LMP SIP submittal for New Haven-Fairfield was developed in accordance with interagency consultation between Federal, State, and local partners. CT DEEP also includes analysis that addresses the demonstration under 40 CFR 93.109(e) in their supplement submitted on February 21, 2024. This transportation conformity regulation requires that an LMP would have to demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that a maintenance area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a NAAQS violation to occur (40 CFR 93.109(e)).
The state's demonstration assesses the total projected growth in on-road motor vehicle PM
The VMT projection considered by Connecticut was based on the on-road emissions analysis calculation as laid out in the PM
Also, per 40 CFR 93.109(e), an area with an adequate or approved LMP is not required to satisfy the regional emissions analysis for § 93.118 and/or § 93.119 for a given pollutant and NAAQS, in this instance the 2006 PM
In the PM
The following is a summary of EPA's interpretation of the section 175A requirements and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is met. Under the LMP option, the state will be expected to determine on a regular basis that the criteria are still being met. If the state determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take action to reduce PM
As noted above, states that qualify for an LMP must still meet the other elements of a maintenance plan, as articulated in the Calcagni Memo. This includes an attainment year emissions inventory. CT DEEP's New Haven-Fairfield PM
Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to verify the attainment status of the area. CT DEEP continues to operate a PM
The level of the 2006 24-hour PM
CAA section 175A(d) states that a maintenance plan must include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to attainment. As explained in the Calcagni memo, these contingency provisions are an enforceable part of the federally approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency provision, the contingency provision(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the timeframe by which the state would adopt and implement the provision(s). The Calcagni memo states that EPA will determine the adequacy of a contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, the plan must require that the state implement all measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan for the area prior to redesignation.
CT DEEP will continue to adhere to the contingency plan they submitted with their first maintenance plan, which includes the required contingency provisions to ensure the area will promptly correct any violation of the 2006 PM
EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM
As discussed previously, EPA is also initiating as part of this proposed rulemaking the process to determine if the LMP is adequate for transportation conformity purposes. Any comments on the adequacy of the submitted CT LMP should be submitted to the docket established for this rulemaking. EPA may complete that process either in a final action on this LMP or through a separate process provided for in the transportation conformity regulations.
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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 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 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, 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. 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.” 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.”
CT DEEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On July 25, 2024, the State of Washington (WA) submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate to attainment a portion of Whatcom County immediately surrounding the now permanently closed aluminum smelter, Intalco Aluminum LLC, which the EPA designated nonattainment for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0371 at
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-6357 or h
Throughout this document, the use of “we” and “our” means the EPA.
On June 22, 2010, the EPA published a new 1-hour primary SO
In the case of Washington, the EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) identified the Alcoa Intalco Aluminum LLC (Intalco) facility, located in the Cherry Point Industrial Area in Whatcom County, as emitting 2,000 tons or more of SO
In response to the EPA's designation of the NAA, Washington submitted an attainment plan on December 15, 2022, to the EPA for approval. This plan and associated order required significant upgrades to the Intalco facility including installation and operation of a new SO
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a NAA to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation of a NAA provided that: (1) the Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, the EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in several guidance documents. For the purposes of this action, the EPA will be referencing two of these documents: (1) the September 4, 1992, Memorandum from John Calcagni titled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” (hereafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memo”); and (2) the April 23, 2014, Memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled “Guidance for 1-Hour SO
The EPA's evaluation of Washington's redesignation request and maintenance plan was based on consideration of the five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
For redesignating a NAA, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). The two primary methods for evaluating ambient air quality impacted by SO
In this action, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
As shown, the 3-year design values for 2021-2023 at the monitoring stations are well below the 2010 1-hour SO
As part of Washington's 2022 attainment plan and 2024 redesignation request, Ecology submitted information to support a showing that the Ferndale-Mountain View Road monitor was sited in the area of maximum ambient SO
In this action, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
Because the EPA's analysis in determining whether an area has attained under the clean data policy is the same as its analysis under the first redesignation criterion, the EPA is also here proposing that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
In the event that the EPA does not finalize the proposed redesignation, the EPA may choose to finalize the clean data determination, thereby suspending attainment planning-related requirements for the area for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment under a NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements for that NAAQS under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for that NAAQS for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). The EPA proposes to find that Washington has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Whatcom County (partial) SO
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, the EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. The EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, the EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, the EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability (
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all NAAs to provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other requirements.
The EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) and therefore, need not be approved into the SIP before the EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, the EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.
Therefore, because the design values for 2021-2023 are well below the NAAQS in the Whatcom County (partial) SO
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The requirement for an emission inventory can be satisfied by
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Ecology has demonstrated that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
The EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because, like other requirements listed above, state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved.
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Washington has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of the Whatcom County (partial) SO
The EPA has fully approved the applicable Washington SIP for the Whatcom County (partial) area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. As indicated above, the EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable under the 2010 SO
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). The EPA proposes to find that Washington has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Whatcom County (partial) SO
To redesignate a NAA to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its
CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2010 1-hour SO
As part of a state's maintenance plan for a 2010 SO
In the 2019-2021 monitoring period, representative of the base year, the Ferndale-Mountain View Road monitor had a 3-year design value of 56 ppb and the Ferndale-Kickerville Road monitor had a 3-year design value of 44 ppb, both below the 75 ppb concentration of the 1-hour SO
The EPA notes that the permanent shutdown of Intalco has left the Whatcom County (partial) SO
An air agency may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of SO
According to the Calcagni Memo, the state should continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network to verify the attainment status of the area.
With respect to the monitoring network, Ecology maintains two SO
Therefore, Ecology included in its maintenance plan a stepwise analytical process for deploying SO
Ecology lays out its plan for deploying monitors and verifying continued attainment in Chapter 6
Washington's SIP also includes a major new source review program to regulate the construction and modification of major sources constructed or modified in the Ferndale Area.
Similar to the minor NSR program, all sources subject to the major NSR program must obtain a permit before commencing construction. In order to obtain a permit, the source must, among other things, demonstrate the source will apply best available control technologies for each regulated NSR pollutant that the source has the potential to emit in significant amounts. In the case of SO
In addition to the preexisting NSR programs, Washington's maintenance plan includes a stepwise process for assessing the cumulative impacts of new sources constructed in the area and triggering deployment of SO
Under Action Level 2, Washington will conduct refined dispersion modeling that uses actual emissions from existing sources and potential emissions from the new source or modification. If the results of that modeling indicate a design concentration of greater than or equal to 50% of the 1-hour SO
Under Action Level 3, Washington will deploy SO
The State of Washington has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the Whatcom County (partial) 2010 SO
Washington's SIP-approved NSR programs coupled with the stepwise approach for assessing cumulative impacts is adequate to verify continued maintenance of the SO
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must also include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
The maintenance plan includes an action level to determine when the contingency plan process is triggered and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. If an SO
Washington must submit to the EPA its analysis demonstrating that the proposed control measures are adequate to ensure continued maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO
The EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Washington for the Whatcom County (partial) 2010 SO
The EPA is proposing to take the following four separate but related actions: (1) determine that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
The EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan under the 2010 NAAQS for the Whatcom County (partial) SO
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
The EPA is also proposing to determine that the Whatcom County (partial) SO
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in
• 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 Clean Air Act.
In addition, this proposed action, pertaining to redesignation of the Whatcom County (partial) SO
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 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.”
The Washington Department of Ecology did 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 communities with EJ concerns.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances received “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determinations pursuant to TSCA. The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is proposed as a significant new use by this rulemaking to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination.
Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0221, at
TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the factors in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see also the discussion in Unit II.).
EPA is proposing SNURs for the chemical substances discussed in Unit III. These SNURs, if finalized as proposed, would require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
This action applies to you if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances identified in Unit III. This may include entities in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and 324110,
This action may also apply to certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification requirements under TSCA (
Chemical importers are subject to TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612), the requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 (see also 19 CFR 127.28), and the EPA policy in support of import certification at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including regulations issued under TSCA sections 5, 6, 7 and Title IV.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after October 28, 2024 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN reporting requirements for potential manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is briefly summarized here.
If a SNUN is submitted, costs are an estimated $45,000 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $14,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN (including registration for EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)), and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $37,000 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(c)(2)(ii) and (d), or, if they are a small business as defined at 13 CFR 121.201, a reduced user fee of $6,480 (40 CFR 700.45(c)(1)(ii) and (d)) per fiscal year 2022. The costs of submission for SNUNs will not be incurred by any company unless a company decides to pursue a significant new use as defined in these SNURs. Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs and fees as they are known at the time of this rulemaking.
EPA has also evaluated the potential costs associated with the export notification requirements under TSCA section 12(b) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications (
Do not submit CBI to EPA through email or
When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at
This unit provides general information about SNURs. For additional information about EPA's new chemical program go to
TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit and discussed in Unit III.
These proposed SNURs include PMN substances that received a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination in TSCA section 5(a)(3)(c). During its review of these chemicals, EPA identified certain
Under TSCA, no person may manufacture a new chemical substance or manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use until EPA makes a determination as described in TSCA section 5(a) and takes any required action. The issuance of a SNUR is not a risk determination itself, only a notification requirement for “significant new uses,” so that the Agency has the opportunity to review the SNUN for the significant new use and make a TSCA section 5(a)(3) risk determination.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are the subject of these proposed SNURs and as further discussed in Unit III., EPA identified certain other conditions of use, in addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter. EPA has determined that the chemical under the conditions of use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with certain conditions of use. EPA is proposing to designate these other circumstances of use as significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot occur without going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.
EPA is proposing these SNURs because the Agency wants:
• To be able to complete its review and determination on each of the PMN substances, while deferring analysis on the significant new uses proposed in these rules unless and until the Agency receives a SNUN.
• To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.
Issuance of a proposed SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available at
EPA is proposing to establish certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure at 40 CFR 721.11 to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI.
Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to identify the confidential significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to SNURs, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), 5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. In addition, provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700.
Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use of the chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
As discussed in Unit I.C.2., persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b), and persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements. See also
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted, EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing. The identities of many of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have been claimed as confidential per 40 CFR 720.85 and the PMN submitter did not intend to engage in the other circumstances of use that are designated as significant new uses for the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule. Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses identified in Unit III. are ongoing.
When the chemical substances identified in Unit III. are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use.
SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information (
In the absence of a rule, TSCA order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. To assist with EPA's analysis of the SNUN, submitters are encouraged, but not required, to provide the potentially useful information identified for the chemical substance in Unit III.C.
EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h). For more information on alternative test methods and strategies to reduce vertebrate animal testing, visit
The potentially useful information described in Unit III. may not be the only means of providing information to evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
EPA designates September 27, 2024, as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. This designation is explained in more detail in Unit II.E.
For each chemical substance identified in Unit III.C., EPA provides the following information:
• PMN number (the proposed CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this document).
• Chemical name (generic name if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the SNUR.
• Potentially useful information.
The regulatory text section of this document specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the proposed rules, may be claimed as CBI.
These chemical substances have undergone premanufacture review. In addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter, EPA has identified certain other circumstances of use. EPA has preliminarily determined that these chemicals under their conditions of use are not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the other circumstances of use for these chemicals. EPA is proposing to designate these other circumstances of use as significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot occur without first going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.
The substances subject to the proposed rules in this document are as follows:
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 43 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No processing of the PMN substance above 1% in formulation for consumer products.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No use of the PMN substance other than as a chemical intermediate.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure; and
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 39 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No processing of the PMN substance to greater than 5% by weight in the final formulated product for any use; and
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 16 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No domestic manufacture (
• Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use described in the PMN; and
• Use of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of at least 10 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure; and
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No use of the PMN substance in spray applications;
• No consumer use of the PMN substance; and
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 16 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No use of the PMN substances in a spray application method where more than 1% of particles are less than 10 microns in diameter.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No domestic manufacture (
• No use of the PMN substance other than for incorporating into rubber products.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No domestic manufacture (
• No import of the PMN substance other than in the confidential form described in the PMN; and
• No processing of the PMN substance in end use formulations to greater than the confidential concentration percentage identified in the PMN.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No consumer use of the PMN substance; and
• Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use described in the PMN.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No consumer use of the PMN substance.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No consumer use of the PMN substance.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, into water;
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure; and
• Use of the PMN substance only as a coupling agent in elastomer-based formulations that will be used in molding operations to manufacture different types of rubber articles including but not limited to rubber tires.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of the PMN substance only as a reactive polymer for use in adhesives and sealants; and
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No use other than as a dye for use with paper, paper products, and nonwoven products produced from paper.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 5 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure; and
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 44 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No release of the PMN substances into the waters of the United States;
• No consumer use of the PMN substances; and
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substances in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 71 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceeds 1 ppb.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use described in the PMN.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that results in inhalation exposure; and
• Use of the PMN substance only as a surfactant for use in the formulation of pesticide products.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action proposes to establish SNURs for new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023).
According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to SNURs have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per submission. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
EPA always welcomes your feedback on the burden estimates. Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for improving the collection instruments or instruction or minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was 16 in Federal fiscal year (FY) FY2018, five in FY2019, seven in FY2020, 13 in FY2021, 11 in FY2022, and 15 in FY2023, and only a fraction of these submissions were from small businesses.
In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $37,000 to $6,480. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $14,500 per SNUN submission for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with these proposed SNURs are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by SNURs, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by these SNURs. In addition, the estimated costs of this action to the private sector do not exceed $183 million or more in any one year (the 1995 dollars are adjusted to 2023 dollars for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator). The estimated costs for this action are discussed in Unit I.D.
This action will not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on 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. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this action.
This action will not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk. Since this action does not concern a
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This action does not involve any technical standards subject to NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
This action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to the potential for disproportionate impacts on non-white and low-income populations in accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023). Although this action does not concern human health or environmental conditions, the premanufacture notifications required by these SNURs allows EPA to assess the intended uses to identify potential disproportionate risks and take appropriate actions before the activities commence.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) (Amendment 3). If implemented, this proposed rule would establish new management measures for dolphinfish (
Written comments must be received no later than October 28, 2024.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
An electronic copy of Amendment 3, which includes a fishery impact statement, an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Sarah Stephenson, 727-824-5305,
NMFS, with the advice of the Council, manages the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John fisheries in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters under the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs, which the Secretary of Commerce approved, and NMFS implements the FMPs through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
On September 22, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce approved the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs under section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The FMPs took effect on October 13, 2022, after NMFS published the final rule to implement the FMPs (87 FR 56204, September 13, 2022). Each FMP contains management
Prior to implementation of the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs, dolphinfish and wahoo were not federally managed in Federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean. Because of the economic importance of these fast-growing, short-lived pelagic species to the region, they were included for management under each of the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs, even though, given their migratory nature, they are exposed to harvest pressure across a wide area of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. While each FMP established annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures for dolphinfish and wahoo, the FMPs did not establish other management measures often used to limit harvest or effort such as minimum size limits, recreational bag and possession limits, or commercial trip limits.
At its December 2021 meeting, the Council began discussions on management measures that could be used to address the increasing opportunity for the overharvest of juvenile dolphinfish as a result of the increasing influx and presence of
The Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs and implementing island-based management rule did not include minimum size limits for dolphinfish or wahoo because these species were new to Federal management in the U.S. Caribbean. This proposed rule would establish minimum size limits for dolphinfish and wahoo for all fishing in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters (commercial and recreational sectors) to address the potential for small-sized (
Currently, there are no recreational bag or possession limits for dolphinfish or wahoo for the same reasons noted above. The proposed rule would establish recreational bag and possession limits for dolphinfish and wahoo to help regulate their harvest in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters by the recreational sector. While the Puerto Rico FMP established recreational sector ACLs and ACTs for dolphinfish and wahoo, the Marine Recreational Information Program that collected recreational data for Puerto Rico was suspended in 2017 and has not resumed to date. Recreational data were not collected for St. Croix or St. Thomas and St. John. As a result, neither the St. Croix FMP nor the St. Thomas and St. John FMP established sector-specific ACLs and ACTs for dolphinfish and wahoo. Though some catch information is available from recreational fishing tournaments that occur in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), that information likely underrepresents the total number of dolphinfish or wahoo caught each year by the recreational sector. Thus, the number of recreational fishermen and the amount of dolphinfish or wahoo removed by the sector are largely unknown for the region. Setting recreational bag and possession limits for the recreational sector in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John could reduce the chance of overfishing the resource, while allowing fishermen access to the species.
The proposed recreational bag and possession limits for dolphinfish would be more conservative than the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in Puerto Rico territorial waters, but consistent with the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John territorial waters. With respect to wahoo, the proposed recreational bag and possession limits would be consistent with the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in Puerto Rico territorial waters, but more conservative than the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John territorial waters. Compatible regulations make it easier for fishermen to comply with the regulations and for law enforcement to monitor compliance to the regulations.
Because the commercial landings of dolphinfish and wahoo in each island management area have been less than the corresponding ACLs, additional harvest constraints for the commercial sector are not needed at this time.
For dolphinfish and wahoo, this proposed rule would establish commercial and recreational minimum size limits and recreational bag and possession limits in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John.
Currently, no minimum size limits are in place for dolphinfish or wahoo in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. All sizes of dolphinfish or wahoo that are caught by commercial or recreational fishermen can be retained, though subject to the applicable ACLs and ACTs. For commercial and recreational fishing in the Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, this proposed rule would establish a 24 inches (61.0 centimeters (cm)) fork length (FL), minimum size limit for dolphinfish and a 32 inches (81.3 cm) FL, minimum size limit for wahoo. As described in Amendment 3, these minimum size limits are based on size at maturity information reported for each species in the U.S. Caribbean.
Currently, no recreational bag or possession limits are in place for dolphinfish or wahoo in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. All dolphinfish or wahoo that are caught by recreational fishermen in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters during a recreational fishing trip can be retained, though subject to the applicable ACLs and ACTs. For Federal waters around Puerto Rico, this proposed rule would establish a recreational bag and possession limit of 5 dolphinfish per person per day, not to exceed 15 dolphinfish per vessel per day, whichever is less and a recreational bag and possession limit of 5 wahoo per
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 3, the FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the full analysis is included in Amendment 3, which is available from the Southeast Regional Office website (see
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the proposed rule is being considered. This proposed rule is being considered to develop conservation and management measures for dolphinfish and wahoo, which are recently added stocks to Federal management in the U.S. Caribbean. This proposed rule takes a precautionary approach to management to protect against overfishing of an unmanaged resource.
Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. The objective of this proposed rule is to establish size limits and recreational bag limits for dolphinfish and wahoo under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Croix FMP, and the St. Thomas/St. John FMP. These size limits would ensure proactive management of these species and increase the potential for these fish to enter the fishery and have time to reproduce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for this proposed rule.
Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. No new reporting and record-keeping requirements are introduced by this proposed rule.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Relevant Federal rules include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
The proposed action, if implemented, would directly affect both anglers (recreational fishers) and commercial fishing businesses that harvest dolphinfish and wahoo in Federal waters around Puerto Rico and the USVI. Anglers, however, are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from charter vessel or headboat (for-hire) fishing, privately owned, or leased vessels. Therefore, neither estimates of the number of anglers nor the impacts on them are required or provided in this analysis.
Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) authorizes an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the following figures are expressed in 2021 dollars and all weights described in this proposed rule are in round weight.
From 2017 through 2021, an annual average of 706 Puerto Rico commercial fishermen were actively fishing, and each of these fishermen is expected to represent a unique commercial fishing business. On average, they collectively landed approximately 1.87 million pounds (lb) or 848,217.7 kilograms (kg) of marine resources with a direct value (revenue) of about $9.16 million from all waters. The highest annual landings and direct value from their combined landings during the 5-year period were in 2019: 2.47 million lb (1,120,373.2 kg) with a direct value of almost $12.03 million. The average commercial fisherman during this 5-year period had annual revenue from all landings of $12,975. None of the fishermen had annual revenue from fishing that was close to the small business standard size limit. From the above, NMFS concludes that all commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico are small.
Because price data are not available after 2019 in the USVI, estimates of the numbers of small commercial fishing businesses directly affected by the proposed rule and its impacts on them are generated using 2015 through 2019 data. From 2015 through 2019, an annual average of 127 commercial fishermen (59 in St. Croix and 68 in St. Thomas and St. John) were actively fishing and collectively they generated average annual direct revenues of $4.71 million (St. Croix $1.93 million and St. Thomas and St. John $2.78 million). Each of these commercial fishermen is expected to represent a unique business. Therefore, NMFS concludes that all commercial fishing businesses in St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John are small.
Not all of the above active small commercial fishing businesses harvest dolphinfish or wahoo from Federal waters. On average, 94 (13.3 percent) of Puerto Rico's 706 small businesses land dolphinfish or wahoo annually from Federal and unknown waters. For this proposed rule, “unknown waters” represent an area around each island or island group for which the jurisdiction, Federal or territorial, was not reported on the commercial catch report form. Note that these figures include small businesses that land dolphinfish or wahoo from unknown waters, and, as such, may result in overestimates of both the numbers of small businesses directly affected and the impacts on them. Likewise, 15 (25.4 percent) of St. Croix's 59 small businesses land dolphinfish or wahoo annually from Federal and unknown waters: 14 land dolphinfish and 10 land wahoo. Twelve (17.7 percent) of St. Thomas and St. John's 68 small businesses land dolphinfish or wahoo annually from
The proposed action would establish a 24 inches (61.0 cm) FL, minimum size limit for all fishing for dolphinfish in Federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. It would also establish a 32 inches (81.3 cm) FL, minimum size limit for all fishing for wahoo in Federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. These minimum size limits are based on size at maturity information reported for each species in the U.S. Caribbean. There are currently no minimum size limits for either dolphinfish or wahoo in Federal waters.
An annual average of 45,016 lb (20,418.9 kg) of dolphinfish and 8,525 lb (3,866.9 kg) of wahoo are harvested from Federal and unknown waters by 94 small businesses annually. Forty-two (44.7 percent) of these small businesses land both dolphinfish and wahoo and they collectively account for 70.7 percent of dolphinfish landings and 89.5 percent of wahoo landings by weight. Forty-six (48.9 percent) account for the remainder (29.3 percent) of dolphinfish landings and six (6.4 percent) account for the remainder (10.5 percent) of wahoo landings. NMFS estimates that the proposed action would reduce commercial landings (by weight) of dolphinfish by less than 1 percent and wahoo by 11.9 percent annually.
On average, each of the 42 small businesses that land both dolphinfish and wahoo from Federal and unknown waters would have annual reductions of dolphinfish landings of less than 8 lb (3.6 kg) and annual reductions of wahoo landings of 22 lb (10.0 kg). At 2021 prices, the 42 small businesses that land both dolphinfish and wahoo would experience annual revenue decreases of less than $130 (less than $33 from dolphinfish and $97 from wahoo). The combined loss represents less than 0.6 percent of the average annual revenue from all landings for these 42 small businesses.
The 48 small businesses that land dolphinfish and not wahoo from Federal and unknown waters would each have an annual reduction in dolphinfish landings less than 3 lb (1.4 kg) and $13. The loss of dolphinfish revenue represents less than 0.1 percent of the average annual revenue of these 46 small businesses.
The 6 small businesses that land wahoo and not dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters would each have an annual reduction in wahoo landings of 18 lb (8.2 kg) and $78. The loss of wahoo revenue represents 0.6 percent of the average annual revenue of these six small businesses.
Two alternatives to the 24 inches (61.0 cm) FL, minimum size limit for dolphinfish were considered but not recommended by the Council. The first, the no-action alternative, would have no adverse impact on small businesses but would not support proactive species management. The second would have a smaller minimum size limit (20 inches; 50.8 cm FL), and, like the recommended alternative, it would reduce annual commercial landings of dolphinfish by less than 1 percent. This smaller size limit corresponds with only 50 percent of females being capable of reproduction as opposed to the 24 inches FL, which corresponds with approximately all females being mature. As such, the 24 inches FL is preferable to reduce fishing pressures and allow more females to reach maturity.
Two alternatives to the 32 inches (81.3 cm) FL, minimum size limit for wahoo were considered but not recommended by the Council. The first, the no-action alternative, would have no adverse impact on small businesses but would not support proactive species management. The second, would establish a larger minimum size limit (40 inches; 101.6 cm, FL) and would reduce landings of wahoo by 37.7 percent instead of the 11.9 percent reduction caused by the recommended alternative. This alternative is not preferable as it would have a greater adverse impact on small businesses than the 32 inches FL minimum size limit.
An annual average of 15 small businesses harvest dolphinfish or wahoo from Federal and unknown waters. To avoid potential disclosure of priority information, a comparison of the small businesses that land both dolphinfish and wahoo and impacts on them to businesses that land one of the species is not provided. An annual average of 14 small businesses in St. Croix land dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters. The top 7 account for 95.4 percent of dolphinfish landings, while the bottom 7 account for the remaining 4.6 percent. On average, these 14 small businesses collectively land 34,038 lb (15,439.4 kg) of dolphinfish annually. The average of the top 7 small businesses lands 4,640 lb (2,104.7 kg) of dolphinfish and has annual revenue from all landings of $98,803 annually. The average of the bottom 7 small businesses lands 225 lb (102.1 kg) of dolphinfish and has annual revenue from all landings of $8,711 annually.
NMFS estimates that the action would reduce annual commercial landings of dolphinfish in St. Croix by 5 percent. On average, each of the top 7 of the small businesses that land dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters would have an annual reduction in dolphinfish landings of 234 lb (106.1 kg) and $1,491, which represents 1.5 percent of their average annual revenue from all landings. Each of the bottom 7 that land dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters would have an average annual reduction in landings of about 9 lb (4.1 kg) and $57, which represents 0.7 percent of their average annual revenue from all landings.
An annual average of 10 small businesses in St. Croix land wahoo from Federal and unknown waters. The top 5 account for 95.4 percent of wahoo landings, while the bottom 5 account for the remaining 4.6 percent. On average, these 10 small businesses collectively land 17,966 lb (8,149.2 kg) of wahoo annually. The average of the top 5 small businesses lands 3,692 lb (1,674.7 kg) of wahoo and has annual revenue from all landings of $129,686 annually. The average of the bottom 5 small businesses lands 140 lb (63.5 kg) of wahoo and has annual revenue from all landings of $19,373 annually.
NMFS estimates that the action would reduce annual commercial landings of wahoo in St. Croix by 2.2 percent. On average, each of the top 5 of the 10 small businesses that land wahoo from Federal and unknown waters would have an annual reduction in wahoo landings of 76 lb (34.5 kg) and $502, which represents 0.4 percent of their average annual revenue from all landings. Each of the bottom 5 that land wahoo from Federal and unknown waters would have an average annual reduction in landings of 4 lb (1.8 kg) and $26, which represents 0.1 percent of their average annual revenue from all landings.
Two alternatives to the 24 inches (61.0 cm) FL, minimum size limit for dolphinfish were considered but not recommended by the Council. The first, the no-action alternative, would have no adverse impact on small businesses but would not support proactive species management. The second would have a smaller minimum size limit (20 inches; 50.8 cm, FL), and it would reduce dolphinfish landings by 3.9 percent as opposed to the 5.0 percent that would be caused by the recommended alternative. However, this smaller minimum size limit would not be as effective for reducing fishing pressures on the species.
Two alternatives to the 32 inches (81.3 cm) FL, minimum size limit for
An annual average of 12 small businesses in St. Thomas and St. John land dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters. The top 6 account for 97.2 percent of dolphinfish landings, while the bottom 6 account for the remaining 2.8 percent. On average, these 12 small businesses collectively land 8,889 lb (4,032.0 kg) of dolphinfish annually. The average of the top 6 small businesses lands 1,440 lb (653.2 kg) of dolphinfish and has annual revenue from all landings of $27,311 annually. The average of the bottom 6 small businesses lands 41 lb (18.6 kg) of dolphinfish and has annual revenue from all landings of $25,031 annually.
NMFS estimates that the action would reduce annual commercial landings of dolphinfish in St. Thomas and St. John by 1 percent. On average, each of the top 6 of the 12 small businesses that land dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters would have an annual reduction in dolphinfish landings of about 15 lb (6.8 kg) and $554, which represents 2.0 percent of their average annual revenue from all landings. Each of the bottom 6 that land dolphinfish from Federal and unknown waters would have an average annual reduction in landings of less than 1 lb (0.5 kg) and $3, which represents less than 0.1 percent of their average annual revenue from all landings.
An annual average of 8 small businesses in St. Thomas and St. John land wahoo from Federal and unknown waters. The top 4 account for 89.6 percent of wahoo landings, while the bottom 4 account for the remaining 10.4 percent. On average, these 8 small businesses collectively land 3,058 lb (1,387.1 kg) of wahoo annually. The average of the top 4 small businesses lands about 685 lb (310.7 kg) of wahoo and has annual revenue from all landings of $31,792 annually. The average of the bottom 4 small businesses lands about 80 lb (36.3 kg) of wahoo and has annual revenue from all landings of $15,659 annually.
It is estimated that the recommended minimum size limit for wahoo would reduce commercial landings of wahoo in St. Thomas and St. John by 12 percent, which would be a reduction of 367 lb (166.5 kg) annually. The average of the top 4 small businesses would have an annual decrease in wahoo landings of 82 lb (37.2 kg) and revenues of $622, which represents about 2 percent of their annual revenue from all landings. The average of the bottom 4 small businesses would have an annual decrease of wahoo landings by 10 lb (4.4 kg) and revenue of about $76, which represents about 0.5 percent of annual revenue from all landings.
Two alternatives to the 24 inches (61.0 cm) FL, minimum size limit for dolphinfish were considered but not recommended by the Council. The first, the no-action alternative, would have no adverse impact on small businesses but would not support proactive species management. The second would have a smaller minimum size limit (20 inches; 50.8 cm, FL), and it would reduce dolphinfish landings by less than 1 percent which is the same annual reduction in landings as the recommended alternative. This smaller minimum size limit corresponds to the size at which only approximately 50 percent of females are mature. As such, the larger minimum size limit is preferable to reduce fishing pressures by allowing more females to reach maturity.
Two alternatives to the 32 inches (81.3 cm) FL, minimum size limit for wahoo were considered but not recommended by the Council. The first, the no-action alternative, would have no adverse impact on small businesses. The second, would establish a larger minimum size limit (40 inches; 101.6 cm, FL), which would reduce wahoo landings by a larger percentage than the recommended alternative.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Caribbean, Dolphinfish, Fisheries, Fishing, Wahoo.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b)
(2) Wahoo—32 inches (81.3 cm), FL.
(b)
(2) Wahoo—5 per person per day, not to exceed 10 per vessel per day, whichever is less.
(b)
(2) Wahoo—32 inches (81.3 cm), FL.
(b)
(2) Wahoo—2 per person per day, not to exceed 10 per vessel per day, whichever is less.
(b)
(2) Wahoo—32 inches (81.3 cm), FL.
(b)
(2) Wahoo—2 per person per day, not to exceed 10 per vessel per day, whichever is less.
In notice document 2024-19314 appearing on page 68849 in the issue of Wednesday, August 28, 2024, make the following correction:
In the second column, under
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by October 28, 2024. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Egg, Chicken, and Turkey Surveys obtain basic poultry statistics from voluntary cooperators throughout the Nation. Statistics are published on placement of pullet chicks for hatchery supply flocks; hatching reports for broiler-type, egg-type, and turkey eggs; number of layers on hand; total table egg production; and production and value estimates for eggs, chickens, and turkeys. The frequencies of the surveys being conducted include weekly, monthly, and annually. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh table beet root (
Imports may be authorized beginning September 27, 2024.
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2352;
Under the regulations in “Subpart L-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS proposes to authorize the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that the measures can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the
In accordance with that process, we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days, ending on October 23, 2023. We received no comments by that date.
Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands of fresh table beet root (
These conditions will be listed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database (
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2533.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice; withdrawal.
The Dakota Prairie Grasslands is withdrawing its notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan amendment and site-specific projects for the Elkhorn Ranchlands acquired lands. The original notice of intent was published in the
Questions concerning this notice should be directed to LeAnn Colburn via U.S. postal mail at Dakota Prairie Grasslands Supervisors Office, 2000 Miriam Circle, Bismarck, ND 58501; via telephone at 701-989-7304; or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the hearing impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of adoption of multiple categorical exclusions from the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is adopting multiple categorical exclusions from the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS) listed at 516 Departmental Manual 9.5 B, G, H, I, K, and P pursuant to section 109 of the National Environmental Policy Act for future application to Forest Service decisions concerning land management activities that are similar in nature. This notice describes the categories and consultation between the agencies.
The categorical exclusion adoptions take effect on September 27, 2024.
Andrea Pahlevanpour, Assistant Director, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, by phone at 771-216-0229 or via email to
Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the hearing impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), as amended, requires all Federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their proposed actions before deciding whether and how to proceed (42 U.S.C. 4321, 4332). The aims of NEPA are to ensure that agencies consider the potential environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-making processes and inform and involve the public in that process (42 U.S.C. 4332). NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality, which promulgated NEPA implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500 through 1508 (Council on Environmental Quality regulations).
To comply with NEPA, agencies determine the appropriate level of review for a proposed action. Where required, these levels of review may be documented in an environmental impact statement (EIS), an environmental assessment (EA), or by reliance on a categorical exclusion (CE) (40 CFR 1501.3). If a proposed action is likely to have significant environmental effects, the agency will prepare an EIS and document its decision in a record of decision (40 CFR 1502, 1505.2). If the proposed action is not likely to have significant environmental effects or where the level of significance is unknown, the agency will prepare an EA, which involves a more concise analysis and process than an EIS (40 CFR 1501.5). Following preparation of an EA, the agency may reach a finding of no significant impact if the analysis shows that the action will have no significant effects (40 CFR 1501.6). If, following preparation of an EA, the agency finds that the proposed action will have significant effects, it will prepare an EIS before issuing any decision to authorize the action (40 CFR 1501.6(a)(3)).
Under NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations, a Federal agency can establish CEs—categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment—in its agency NEPA procedures 42 U.S.C. 4336(e)(1); 40 CFR 1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii), 1508.1(d). If an agency determines that a CE covers a proposed action, the agency then evaluates the proposed action for any extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect (40 CFR 1501.4(b)). Responsible officials in the Forest Service evaluate proposed actions for extraordinary circumstances in accordance with the Forest Service's NEPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR 220.6. If no extraordinary circumstances are found or if further analysis determines that the extraordinary circumstances do not involve the potential for significant environmental impacts, the agency may rely on the CE to approve the proposed action without preparing an EA or an EIS (42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2); 40 CFR 1501.4). If extraordinary circumstances exist, the agency may nonetheless categorically exclude the proposed action if it determines that there are means to avoid the impacts or otherwise modify the action sufficient to avoid significant effects (40 CFR 1501.4(b)(1)).
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt a categorical exclusion listed in another agency's NEPA procedures for a category of proposed agency actions for which the categorical exclusion was established” (42 U.S.C. 4336c). To adopt another agency's categorical exclusion under section 109, the adopting agency: (1) identifies the relevant categorical exclusion listed in another agency's (“establishing agency”) NEPA procedures “that covers a category of proposed actions or related actions”; (2) consults with the establishing agency “to ensure that the proposed adoption of the categorical exclusion for a category of actions is appropriate”; (3) “identifies to the public the categorical exclusion that the [adopting] agency plans to use for its proposed actions”; and (4) “documents adoption of the categorical exclusion” (see 42 U.S.C. 4336c).
The Forest Service's NEPA procedures are found at 36 CFR 220. These procedures address compliance with NEPA. The Forest Service maintains a list of categorical exclusions available at 36 CFR 220.6. Additional NEPA policy is found in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, chapter 10.
This notice documents the Forest Service's adoption of the USGS categorical exclusions 516 Departmental Manual 9.5 B, G, H, I, K, and P.
The Forest Service requires at 36 CFR 220.6(e) that, “A supporting record is required and the decision to proceed must be documented in a decision memo for the categories of action in paragraphs (e)(1) through (25) of this section.” For all the categorical exclusions (CEs) adopted in this notice, the Forest Service will require a
Forest Service NEPA regulations state that a CE may only be applied “if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action” and if the proposed action is within a CE listed within a category as specified in regulations (36 CFR 220.6(a)). Forest Service NEPA regulations list seven resource conditions that “should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS” (36 CFR 220.6(b)).
For the CEs adopted from USGS and described in this notice, the Forest Service will also apply the Department of the Interior's extraordinary circumstances criteria set forth in 43 CFR 46.215(a) through (l), which are slightly different from the Forest Service's resource conditions that should be considered in evaluating extraordinary circumstances.
In June 2024 the Forest Service conducted consultation with the USGS on adoption of their CEs 516 Departmental Manual 9.5 B, G, H, I, K, and P. The USGS and Forest Service consultation included a review of USGS experience developing and applying the CEs, as well as the types of actions for which Forest Service plans to utilize the CEs. The Forest Service actions would be similar to the type of projects for which USGS has applied the CEs and therefore the effects of Forest Service projects will be similar to the effects of USGS projects, which are not significant, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the Forest Service has determined that its proposed use of USGS CEs as described in this notice is appropriate.
B. Collection of data and samples for geologic, palaeontologic, hydrologic, mineralogic, geochemical and surface or subsurface geophysical investigations, and resource evaluation, including contracts therefor.
G. Test or exploration drilling and downhole testing, including contracts therefor.
H. Establishment of survey marks, placement and operation of field instruments, and installation of any research/monitoring devices.
I. Digging and subsequent site restoration of exploratory trenches not to exceed one acre of surface disturbance.
K. Off-road travel to drilling, data collection or observation sites which does not impact ecologically sensitive areas such as wilderness areas, wetlands, or areas of critical habitat for listed endangered or threatened species.
P. Minor activities required to gain or prepare access to sites selected for completion of exploration drilling operations or construction of stations for hydrologic, geologic, or geophysical data collection.
Rural Housing Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA).
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, announces that it is inviting applications for the Multifamily Housing Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Program (MPR) and Section 515 Loan Program. These loan and grant funds will be made available to qualified applicants which may be used to preserve and improve existing Rural Rental Housing (RRH) and Off-Farm Labor Housing (OFF-FLH) projects to extend their affordable use.
Electronic submissions must be received no later than December 26, 2024, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), to be eligible for funding under this Notice. The applicant must send an email message by 12 p.m. ET (noon) on December 16, 2024, to the RHS Production and Preservation Division (see the
All applications made in response to this Notice must be submitted electronically to the RHS Production and Preservation Division, Processing and Report Review (PRR) Branch using the following process: The applicant must send an email message by the date and time provided in the
Application submission instructions will be emailed to all interested respondents supplying valid email addresses within two (2) business days from the date the email of interest is received by the Agency.
Jonathan Bell, Director, Processing and Report Review Branches, Production and Preservation Division, MFH, RD, USDA, via email:
Persons with disabilities that require alternative means of communication for program information (
Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for funding under this Notice. Paper applications will not be accepted. Applications that are deemed eligible but are not selected for further processing due to lack of funding will be withdrawn from processing.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, authorized USDA to conduct a demonstration program (
RD will continue to support and promote activities and investments that will achieve the following:
1.
2.
3.
For further information, visit
(1) 10.447—Rural Multifamily Housing Revitalization Demonstration Program (MPR).
(2) 10.415—Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Subsequent Loans
The MPR Demonstration Program restructures loans and provides additional financing for existing Section 515 Rural Rental Housing (RRH) and Section 514/516 Off-Farm Labor Housing (Off-FLH) projects to help improve and preserve the availability of safe affordable rental housing for low-income residents. The Section 515 RRH Subsequent Loan program provides additional financing for existing Section 515 RRH projects to help improve and preserve the affordability of safe affordable rental housing for low-income residents. MPR and the Section 515 RRH Program are being combined in this Notice to gain efficiencies in the announcement of funding opportunities, application, and selection process, as both programs are eligible preservation resources. Although Section 515 Subsequent Loans, as described under 7 CFR 3560.73 are not required to be awarded under a NOFA, including these funds in this NOFA will enhance program transparency for the public and allow for fair and equitable competition for the resource.
Both programs are designed to address preservation needs in Rural Development's Multifamily Housing portfolio. Funds may be used to address health, safety and accessibility needs and to repair or renovate existing project items identified in the Capital Needs Assessment (CNA). Additional items may be added to the scope of work, if practical and feasible, at the sole discretion of the RHS. Proposals to develop or construct additional units within the existing building envelope, only if needed to comply with accessibility requirements, will be considered and are eligible under this Notice. To be considered for funding, all applicants are required to meet both the general threshold requirements, as well as the program-specific requirements as outlined in this Notice. The CNA Template and CNA Process Addendum are provided at the Multifamily Housing Direct Loans website, click on the “To Apply” tab;
RHS will hold workshops to provide general guidance and assistance regarding this NOFA prior to the application deadline. These workshops will be announced via GovDelivery notice and will also be posted on the MFH Programs website (
All applications must follow the applicable Agency regulations in 7 CFR part 3560. The MPR Program and the Section 515 RRH Program are subject to title V of the Housing Act of 1949; 7 CFR part 3560: and the requirements set forth in this Notice.
To be eligible for funding under this NOFA, applicants must meet all statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the MPR and/or Section 515 RRH program funding. Program regulations may be found at the following link:
The definitions applicable to this Notice are published at 7 CFR 3560.11 which can be found on the following website:
Awards under the MPR Demonstration Program and Section 515 RRH Program will be made using the specific selection criteria contained in this Notice.
The Agency will review, evaluate, and score applications received in response to this Notice based on the provisions found in 7 CFR part 3560 (
Eligibility for MPR and section 515 funding under this NOFA includes current RD borrowers that have received a loan from the Agency and eligible applicants under 7 CFR part 3560 who are applying to assume ownership and the associated outstanding RD loans on RD-financed MFH properties. Eligible applicants for the MPR and Section 515 programs include individuals, partnerships or limited partnerships, consumer cooperatives, trusts, State or local public agencies, corporations, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations, Indian Tribes, associations, or other entities that own or will be the owner of the project for which an application for transfer of ownership by the Agency is submitted. Applicants must be eligible entities and not currently debarred, suspended, or delinquent on any Federal debt. Agency regulations for the Section 515 MFH program and the Sections 514/516 Farm Labor Housing (FLH) program are published at 7 CFR part 3560.
Projects must meet at least one of the following requirements to be eligible to receive funding:
(a) All Agency loans on the project will reach mortgage maturity prior to January 1, 2027. If a consolidation of two or more projects into a single project is proposed, all loans on the consolidated project must reach maturity prior to January 1, 2028.
(b) The project has an existing MPR debt deferral that expires prior to January 1, 2028.
(c) The project sustained damage due to a storm, fire, flood, wind, or other man-made or natural disaster and necessary repairs as a result of the damage are incomplete and/or units are uninhabitable due to inadequate insurance proceeds.
(d) The project has been approved under the Agency's Simple Transfer Pilot Program, published in the
(e) A purchase and sale agreement has been approved for the project under the Agency's sale to nonprofit process in 7 CFR 3560.659 and the project requires additional funding to complete a transfer of ownership to the new buyer.
(f) Loan(s) on the project were reamortized at the request of the owner to avoid payoff and program exit prior to imminent loan maturity (“reamortization lite”) and the project requires funding to address unmet rehabilitation needs.
(g) Repairs or modifications are needed to address health and safety findings or violations and/or accessibility modifications identified in the property's Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) submitted with the application. The combined amount of the health, safety, and accessibility repairs or modifications identified in the CNA must exceed an average cost of $4,000 per unit to meet the project eligibility criteria.
All applications must meet all threshold eligibility requirements as follows:
(a) Applications must be complete as specified by this Notice;
(b) Applications must be submitted electronically;
(c) Complete applications must be received by 12 p.m., Eastern Time December 26, 2024;
The determination of initial eligibility for any application will be determined as of the application submission deadline date. The RHS reserves the right to discontinue the processing of any application due to material changes in the applicant's status occurring any time after the initial eligibility determination.
There are no cost sharing or matching requirements to receive program funding.
To focus investments in areas where the need for increased prosperity is greatest, RHS will set aside 10 percent of the available funds for applications that will serve persistent poverty counties. The term “persistent poverty counties” means any county that has had 20 percent or more of its population living in poverty over the last 30 years, using the 2020 Decennial Census data and the 2017-2021 American Community Survey five-year average), or any territory or possession of the United States. Information on which counties are considered persistent poverty counties can be found through using the following link:
To address issues of geographic isolation of communities separated by long distances, absence of large metropolitan centers, low-density settlement patterns, historic dependence on agriculture, continued population loss, outmigration, and economic upheaval or economic distress, the Agency will provide a set aside under this announcement for applications in Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Zones. REAP Zones locations are as follows:
The Agency has an interest in supporting a broad geographic distribution of program funds. Projects will be scored without regard to State location. However, if five projects in a State have received program funding obligations, no further obligations will be made to projects in that State until a funding decision has been made on all projects that have met the minimum scoring requirements as described in the Scoring section of this Notice. When all other funding decisions have been made, the Agency may provide additional awards in States that have already received five awards. Projects located on tribal lands will not count against the five-project State limit.
Each loan made by the Agency will be secured in a manner that adequately protects the financial interest of the Federal Government throughout the period of the loan in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.61. The Agency will not make any loans without adequate security. The following limitations will be set on loan amounts:
(a) For all loan applicants who will receive benefits from the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program, the amount of Agency financing for the housing will not exceed 95 percent of the security value available for the Agency loan.
(b) For all loan applicants who will not receive LIHTC benefits and who are comprised solely of nonprofit organizations, consumer cooperatives, or State or local public agencies, the amount of the loan will be limited to the security value available for the Agency loan, plus the 2 percent initial operating capital and any necessary relocation costs incurred.
(c) For all other loan applicants who will not receive LIHTC benefits, the loan amount will be limited to no more than 97 percent of the security value available for the Agency loan.
Loan applicants, with the exception of nonprofit organizations, consumer cooperatives, or State or local public agencies who will not be receiving LIHTC benefits, must make an equity contribution from their own resources as follows:
(a) Loan applicants who will receive LIHTC benefits must make an equity contribution in the amount of 5 percent of the Agency loan. The maximum Agency loan will be determined in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.63(c).
(b) Loan applicants who will not receive LIHTC benefits and are not nonprofit organizations, consumer cooperatives, or state or local public agencies must make an equity contribution in the amount of 3 percent of the Agency loan. The maximum Agency loan will be determined in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.63(c).
Grant awards are subject to the requirements outlined in 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.
The total of all liens against the project, with the exception of Agency deferred debt, cannot exceed the Agency-approved security value of the project, except as permitted by 7 CFR 3560.63(b)(2). All Agency debt, either in first lien position or in a subordinated lien position, must be secured by the project, except deferred debt, which is not included in the Agency's total lien position for computation of the Agency's security value in the MPR program. Payment of any deferred debt will not be required from normal project operations income during the term of the debt deferral. Upon expiration of the deferral, if no further deferral is approved, the remaining balance will be reamortized.
Transfers and consolidations may be approved as part of the transaction for the selected applicants in accordance with 7 CFR part 3560 and the following:
(a) If a transfer is part of the transaction, and the transfer includes a seller payment and/or an increase in the allowable Return to Owner (RTO), the transfer must first be underwritten to meet the requirements of 7 CFR 3560.406 to establish the maximum RTO amount RD will recognize for the buyer and seller before the transaction is underwritten.
(b) If a consolidation of existing properties is simultaneously proposed, all projects being consolidated must be submitted in one application that identifies each project. Each property in the proposed consolidated project must be located in the same market area. Market area is defined in 7 CFR 3560.11 as the geographic or locational delineation for a specific project, including outlying areas that will be impacted by the project including the area in which alternative, similar properties effectively compete with the subject property.
(c) Applicants should discuss proposed consolidations with the assigned Servicing Specialist prior to filing their application under this NOFA. RD may permit two or more properties to be consolidated as defined in 7 CFR 3560.410 when it is in the best interests of the Government. The applicant should consult with the RD loan official before engaging the CNA Provider in any case where the CNA intends to encompass more than a single existing RD property to determine if a consolidated CNA may be acceptable for RD underwriting.
(d) If the preservation proposal involves a portfolio transaction (sale or stay-in owner), a separate application for each project in the portfolio is required and each application must identify all projects included in the portfolio transaction. Eligibility determinations will be conducted on each application associated with the portfolio.
(a) For Section 515 RRH projects, the average physical vacancy rate for the 12 months preceding this Notice's application submission date can be no more than 10 percent for projects consisting of 16 or more revenue units and no more than 15 percent for projects less than 16 revenue units. If the average physical vacancy rate exceeds those limits, the applicant must provide current market data (defined as no more than 6 months old at time of filing) that demonstrates there is a need for the project evidenced by waiting lists and a housing shortage confirmed by local housing agencies and realtors. The data demonstrating a need and housing shortage must be accepted by the Agency. The market data must show a clear need and demand for the project once the transaction is completed. The results of the survey of existing or
(b) For Sections 514/516 FLH projects, rather than an average physical vacancy rate, a positive cash flow for the previous full three (3) years of operation is required unless the applicant has an Agency approved workout agreement and is in compliance with the provisions of the workout agreement for a minimum of six (6) consecutive months.
Funds under this NOFA cannot be used to add additional housing units, build community rooms, or add additional parking areas, playgrounds, or laundry rooms unless these improvements are needed to address accessibility requirements.
Applicants must propose a funding plan for the project and request specific tools as part of the funding plan. For loans, the applicant must specify the type of loan requested and the amount of funding requested. For grants, the applicant must specify the amount of funding requested. For debt deferrals, the applicants must specify all loans requested for deferral and provide an estimate of the current outstanding loan balance.
(1)
(a) If an applicant requests a debt deferral and the term of any existing Section 514 or Section 515 loans is less than 20 years, the Agency requires a re-amortization of the existing loans and extending the term up to 20 years.
(b) All terms and conditions of the deferral will be described in the MPR Debt Deferral Agreement. A balloon payment of principal and accrued interest (deferral balloon) will be due at the end of the deferral period, or upon default pursuant to the terms contained therein. Interest will accrue at the promissory note rate and, if applicable, the subsidy will be applied as set out in the Agency's “Multiple Family Housing Interest Credit Agreement,” Form RD 3560-9.
(c) At the time of the deferral balloon, borrowers may request any available servicing tools to preserve any needed projects as affordable rental housing.
(2)
(3)
(a) For Section 515 RRH projects, the maximum loan term is 30 years amortized over a maximum term of 50 years.
(b) For Sections 514/516 projects, the loan will be amortized over a maximum term of the loan which is 33 years.
(4)
(5)
(a) For Section 515 RRH projects, the maximum loan term is 30 years amortized over a maximum term of 50 years.
(b) For Sections 514/516 projects, the loan will be amortized over a maximum term of the loan which is 33 years.
Funding tools are only for authorized purposes in the respective RRH and FLH programs in accordance with 7 CFR part 3560. The program will be administered within the resources available to the Agency through Public Law 118-42.
(6) Other Possible Sources of Funds (not all-inclusive):
(a) RD Section 538 Guaranteed RRH (GRRH) loan. The current
(b) Third-party loans, grants, tax credits and tax-exempt financing;
(c) Owner-provided capital contributions in the form of a cash infusion. A cash infusion cannot be a loan.
Respondents to this Notice must submit complete final applications by the application submission deadline as specified in the
All applications made in response to this Notice must be submitted electronically to the RHS Production and Preservation Division, Processing and Report Review (PRR) Branch using the process outlined in the
Applicants are encouraged to include a checklist of all the application requirements and to index and tab their application to facilitate the review process. The applicant should provide a Table of Contents of all of the documents that have been submitted. Last-minute requests and submissions may not allow adequate time for the submission process to take place prior to the deadline.
Applicants are reminded that all submissions must be received by the deadline and the application will be rejected if it is not received by the deadline date and time, regardless of when the application was submitted.
(1) Application Requirements. The application must contain the following:
(a) An executed and dated Executive Summary on the applicant's letterhead that must include at least the following:
i. Brief description of the project and its history. Include the borrower's name, project name, project location, number of units, number of RA or Operating Assistance (OA) units and unit mix. For FLH projects, address whether the project operates year-round or on a seasonal basis. Provide the year the property was built and placed into service, the original sources of funding, and the original amounts of funding received. Include a description of any significant improvements, repairs, or modifications that have been made since the property was placed in service, which would include substantial rehabilitations and significant repairs that were needed due to natural disasters. Provide any other information that you may want to disclose regarding the project and its history.
ii. Brief description of the proposed transaction. Provide a narrative of the loan and/or grant funds that the applicant is seeking from the RHS, or any other third-party source, and a description of what the funds will be utilized for. Describe the scope of work and explain how the transaction will come together overall, including information on how the project will absorb any additional debt service, if applicable.
iii. Description of the current ownership structure with a detailed organizational chart. If a transfer of ownership is proposed as part of the transaction, include the proposed ownership structure with a detailed organization chart.
iv. Narrative verifying the applicant's ability to meet the applicant eligibility requirements stated earlier in this Notice.
v. A statement of the applicant's experience in operating affordable rental housing, labor housing or other rental housing.
vi. Description of the applicant's legal and financial capability to carry out the obligation and purpose of the loan and/or grant.
vii. Current management. A brief description of how the property is currently managed. If a change in management is proposed as part of the transaction, provide a brief description of the proposed plan to manage the property. As stated earlier in this Notice, the housing must be managed in accordance with the management regulations, 7 CFR part 3560.
viii. Any financial commitments, financial concessions, or other economic benefits proposed to be provided by the RHS.
ix. Third-party funding sources, if applicable. For each third-party funding source, briefly discuss the provider, amount, including terms, commitment status, timing issues, any restrictions that will be applicable to the project, and whether any accommodation from the RHS is proposed, such as a subordination in lien position. The desired lien position of any third-party funding source must be clearly disclosed, as well as any proposal for the RHS to subordinate its lien position.
x. Any proposed compensation to parties having an identity of interest (IOI) with either the consultant or technical assistance provider. An IOI is defined in 7 CFR 3560.11
xi. Any proposed construction financing, for example, a construction or bridge loan or the use of multiple advances.
xii. Type and method of construction, such as negotiated bid or contractor method.
xiii. Signed statement by the applicant that they will pay any cost overruns in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.63(f).
xiv. Estimated development timeline to include estimated start and end date, as well as any other important milestones such as the proposed closing date.
xv. Description of any required state or local approvals and how they will be obtained.
xvi. Description of the required and intended applicant contribution, if applicable.
xvii. Any other pertinent information the applicant wishes to disclose as part of this proposal.
xviii. A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the application scoring criteria contained in this Notice, followed by a reference to the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation contained in the proposal that supports the outlined criteria.
(b) The following forms and certifications are required:
i. Form RD 3560-1, “Application for Partial Release, Subordination, or Consent,” can be obtained at:
ii. Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” can be obtained at:
iii. Form RD 3560-30, “Certification of no Identity of Interest (IOI),” can be found at:
iv. Form RD 3560-31, “Identity of Interest Disclosure/Qualification Certification,” can be found at:
v. Form HUD 2530, “Previous Participation Certification,” if applicable, can be found at:
vi. Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” can be found at:
vii. RD Instruction 1940-Q, Exhibit A-1, “Certification for contracts, grants and loans,” can be found at:
viii. Form RD 1910-11, “Applicant Certification, Federal Collection Policies for Consumer or Commercial Debts,” can be found at:
ix. Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement,” can be found at:
x. Form RD 400-6, “Compliance Statement,” if applicable can be found at:
xi. For projects that have five or more rental units, an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) as defined in 24 CFR part 200, subpart M.
(c) Provide the following financial and organizational information:
i. Current (within 6 months of this Notice's application submission due date) financial statements for each entity within the ownership structure with the following paragraph certified by the applicant's designated and legally authorized signer:
“I/we certify the above is a true and accurate reflection of our financial condition as of the date stated herein. This statement is given for the purpose of inducing the United States of America to make a loan or to enable the United States of America to make a determination of continued eligibility of the applicant for a loan as requested in the loan application of which this statement is a part.”
ii. Submit a current (within 6 months of this Notice's application submission due date) comprehensive credit report for both the entity and the actual individual principals, partners and members within the applicant entity,
iii. Letter from the IRS indicating the applicant's tax identification number.
iv. Individual applicants and principals of organizational applicants must provide to their attorney acceptable evidence of U.S. citizenship and/or qualified alien status. Acceptable evidence of U.S. citizenship may include a valid U.S. birth certificate, a valid U.S. Passport, a valid U.S. Certificate of Naturalization, or other acceptable evidence of U.S. citizenship proposed by the applicant and accepted by the Agency. Acceptable evidence of qualified alien status may include valid documentation issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), or other acceptable documentation of qualified alien status proposed by the applicant and accepted by the Agency.
Attorney Certification. The applicant's attorney must review all applicable evidence to verify U.S. citizenship and/or qualified alien status, must certify that the Agency's U.S. citizenship and/or qualified alien status eligibility requirements are met by all applicants, and must submit the certification for Agency review with the application.
v. Documentation verifying the applicant is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and the applicant's Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number (unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c), or (d)).
vi. For applicants that are limited partnerships, a current and fully executed limited partnership agreement and certificates of limited partners.
vii. For applicants that are limited liability corporations, evidence of organization under State and local law and a copy of the applicant's Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement.
viii. If a nonprofit organization:
a. Tax-exempt ruling from the Internal Revenue Service designating them as a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization.
b. Purpose statement, including the provision of low-income housing.
c. Evidence of organization under state and local law and a copy of the applicant's charter, Articles of Incorporation, and By-laws.
d. List of Board of Directors including names, occupations, phone numbers, and addresses.
e. If a member or subsidiary of another organization, the organization's name, address, and nature of business.
ix. For entity applicants, a Certificate of Good Standing.
x. Attorney Certification. Letter from the applicant's attorney certifying the legal sufficiency of the organizational documents. The attorney must certify:
a. The applicant's legal capacity to successfully operate the proposed project for the life of the loan and/or grant.
b. For entity applicants, that the organizational documents comply with applicable RHS regulations.
c. For partnership or limited partnership applicants, that the term of the partnership extends at least through the latest maturity of all proposed RHS debt.
d. For entity applicants, that the organizational documents require prior written RHS approval for any of the following: withdrawal of a general partner from a partnership or any member from an LLC, admission of a general partner to a partnership or any member to an LLC, amending the organizational documents, and selling all or substantially all of the assets of the applicant.
e. For current RHS borrowers, that there have been no changes to either the ownership entity or the property that have not been approved by the RHS.
(d) Provide the following information about the Project:
i. Document the need for the project. The applicant must provide documentation that the average physical vacancy rate for the twelve (12) months preceding this Notice's application submission due date has been no more than ten (10) percent for projects consisting of sixteen (16) or more revenue units, and no more than fifteen (15) percent for projects with less than sixteen (16) revenue units, unless the project is seasonal Off-FLH, or unless the applicant has an RHS approved workout plan and is in compliance with the provisions of the workout plan, and provides documentation that clearly demonstrates to the RHS that sufficient market demand exists. If the project is seasonal Off-FLH, the applicant must provide detailed documentation for the twenty-four (24) months preceding this Notice's application submission due date that verifies the project's operations, including information regarding the open and close date, lease-up, vacancy, rent rolls, waiting lists, operating budgets, and any other information the applicant wants to provide to document the need for the seasonal Off-FLH project.
If the project does not meet the vacancy requirements above, a description of the cause of the vacancy rate and the plan to increase the occupancy rate must be submitted. The requested loan or grant funds must be needed to stabilize occupancy. In addition, if the project does not meet the vacancy requirements above, the project's waiting list and documentation regarding the market area must be submitted to support the need for the project. The market area must be clearly identified and may include only the area from which tenants can reasonably be drawn to the project. For Off-Farm projects that do not meet the vacancy requirements above, documentation must be provided to justify the need within the primary market area for the housing of domestic farm laborers. The documentation must also consider disabled and retired farm workers and adjusted median incomes of very-low, low, and moderate.
ii. Documentation that the project has a positive cash flow. The applicant must provide documentation that the project had a positive cash flow for the previous full three (3) years of operations preceding this Notice's application submission due date. An exception applies for projects with an RHS approved workout plan wherein the applicant is in compliance with the provisions of the workout plan for a minimum of six consecutive months before becoming eligible for a loan and/or grant under this Notice. Additionally, an exception will apply to projects that have a negative cash flow in operations if surplus cash exists in either the general operating account as defined in 7 CFR 3560.306(d)(1) or the reserve account. Surplus cash exists when the balance is greater than the required deposits minus authorized withdrawals. The applicant must provide the project's annual financial report(s) to document the project complies with this exception for each year the project has a negative cash flow, if applicable. Seasonal Off-FLH properties that receive Operating Assistance (OA) are exempt from this requirement.
(e) Provide the following construction related documents:
i. Plans and specifications along with the proposed manner of construction. The housing must meet RHS's design and construction standards contained in
ii. Construction planning, bidding, and contract documents, including the construction contract and architectural agreement. The construction planning, bidding, and contract documents, including the construction contract and architectural agreement, must be submitted prior to the approval of the application. The RHS will notify eligible applicants of the deadline to submit these materials.
iii. For Off-FLH projects that do not currently have interior/exterior washing facilities, applicants should consider incorporating interior/exterior washing facilities for tenants, as necessary to protect the asset and the tenants from excess dirt and chemical exposure. Such facilities might include a boot washing station or hose bibs, among others.
iv. The applicant must submit a checklist, certification, and signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer, as applicable, for any energy programs in which the applicant intends to participate.
v. An estimate of development costs utilizing Form RD 1924-13, “Estimate and Certificate of Actual Cost,” which can be found at:
(f) Provide the following project financing information:
i. A Sources and Uses Statement which shows all sources of funding included in the proposed transaction. The terms and schedules of all sources included in the project should be included in the Sources and Uses Statement. (Note: A Section 516 grant may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost (TDC) of the transaction.)
ii. All applications that propose the use of any grant, leveraged funds, or similar funding source must submit firm commitment letters with their application, if available. Applicants dependent upon third-party funding, including but not limited to local, State, and Federal resources through competitive and noncompetitive application rounds, must obtain and submit to the Agency a satisfactory commitment of those funds, as determined by the Agency, upon receipt, but no later than the twelve-month time frame, as specified in the award commitment. An extension of the award commitment of up to six months may be given, at the sole discretion of the Agency, and will be based on project viability, current program demand, and availability of program funds. Applicants unable to satisfy this condition of the award commitment will be subject to having the award rescinded and will be required to reapply in future funding announcements.
iii. Description of how the applicant will meet the applicable equity contribution requirement.
(g) Provide the following environmental information:
i. Environmental information in accordance with the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant is responsible for preparing and submitting the environmental review document in accordance with the format and standards provided by RHS in 7 CFR part 1970. Applicants may employ a design or environmental professional or technical service provider to assist them in the preparation of their environmental review documents at their own expense.
ii. Evidence of the submission of the project description to the applicable State Housing Preservation Office (SHPO), and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) with the request for comments, if applicable. A letter from the SHPO and/or THPO where the project is located, signed by their designee, will serve as evidence of compliance.
iii. Intergovernmental review. Evidence of compliance with Executive Order 12372. Information is available on the USDA website at:
(h) Provide the following budget and project management information:
i. A proposed post-transaction operating budget utilizing Form RD 3560-7, “Multiple Family Housing Project Budget/Utility Allowance”. Form can be found at:
The RHS will review the budget to determine that the income and expenses are reasonable and customary for the area. The RHS will also verify that the budget reflects the new RHS loan debt service, if applicable, the existing RHS loan debt service, the number of units, unit mix, and rents. Overall, the RHS must review the budget for feasibility, accuracy, and reasonableness.
ii. Form RD 3560-13, “Multifamily Project Borrower's/Management Agent's Management Certification,” can be found at:
iii. Management plan with all attachments, including the proposed record keeping system, the proposed lease with an attorney's certification and the proposed occupancy rules. This document is required only if the owner is changing the management agent or revising the management plan and any attachments as part of this proposal.
iv. Management Agreement. This document is only required if the owner is changing the management agent or revising the management agreement and any attachments as part of this proposal.
v. Tenant relocation plan, if applicable. Loans and/or grants that are made for major repair may require the temporary relocation of tenants while the project is undergoing work. The applicant must provide a plan and financial assistance for relocation of displaced persons from a site on which a project will be located.
(i) Provide the following third-party reports:
i. Acceptable appraisal. Appraisals may be conditioned but will be required prior to closing. For Off-Farm projects, please refer to the Agency's appraisal assignment guidance under the “To Apply” tab on the Off-Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans & Grants website (
For Section 515 projects, please refer to the Agency's appraisal assignment guidance under the “To Apply” tab on the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) website (
Project funds may be used to obtain the appraisal if there are adequate funds available and the request to use project funds is approved by the Field Operations Division servicing official.
No appraisal is required for subsequent Section 516 Off-FLH grant only requests.
ii. An acceptable As-Is CNA in accordance with the requirements set forth in the CNA Template and CNA Process Addendum provided at
Project funds may be used to obtain the As-Is CNA if there are adequate funds available and the request to use project funds is approved by the Field Operations Division servicing official. The repair plan should be developed in accordance with the CNA and the applicant should submit documentation of the detailed plan and timeline for completion of the repair work.
If any of the required items listed above, with the exception of the appraisal, are not submitted within the application in accordance with this Notice, or are incomplete, the application will be considered incomplete and will not be considered for funding. An acceptable appraisal will be required as a condition of funding but may be submitted prior to closing to minimize upfront third-party report costs for applicants. If the application is incomplete or deemed ineligible, the applicant will be notified of any applicable appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11. Applications that are deemed eligible but are not selected for further processing due to a lack of funding will be withdrawn from processing and will be encouraged to apply to future Notices. This action is not appealable.
The RHS will not consider information from the applicant after the application deadline, expect as expressly specified in this Notice. The RHS may contact the applicant to clarify other items in its application. The RHS will uniformly notify applicants of each curable deficiency. A curable deficiency is an error or oversight that if corrected it would not alter, in a positive or negative fashion, the review and rating of the application. An example of a curable (correctable) deficiency would be inconsistencies in the amount of the funding request. Non-curable deficiencies are threshold components that effect the review and rating of the application, including but not limited to, evidence of an eligible entity and evidence of the need for the project.
Each application must address the applicable scoring criteria presented in this Notice for the type of funding being requested.
All program applicants, unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c), or (d), are required to:
i. Be registered in System Award Management (SAM) before submitting their applications;
ii. Provide a valid Unique Entity ID (UEI) in their applications; and
iii. Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
The Federal awarding agency may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant. SAM is the Official U.S. Government system for collection of forms for acceptance of a Federal award through the registration or annual recertification process. Applicants may register for SAM at
Additional information concerning these requirements can be obtained on the
• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”
• Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax
• Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.”
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
The Agency will not solicit, accept, or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. RHS reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the application. All required application documents in accordance with this Notice must be submitted on or before 12 p.m. (ET) December 26, 2024. Please refer to the
Last-minute requests and submissions may not allow adequate time for the submission process to take place prior to the application deadline. Applications will be rejected if not received by the deadline date and time, regardless of when submitted. The Agency is not liable for technical issues or system-related difficulties that affect an applicant's ability to submit applications in a timely fashion in accordance with the instructions of this NOFA. Application submissions must meet all the requirements of this Notice. No application will be accepted after the deadline unless the date and time is extended by another Notice published in the
Applicants are encouraged to include a checklist of all the application requirements and to index and tab their application to facilitate the review process:
The Agency will determine if applications meet the following criteria:
• The application was received by the submission deadline;
• The application is complete as specified in the NOFA;
• The application is for an authorized purpose; and
• The applicant meets Agency eligibility requirements.
Applicants that are rejected by the Agency because they do not meet the criteria above will not be scored or ranked. Only applications meeting the above criteria will be scored and ranked. RHS will use the scoring and ranking factors outlined in this Notice for MPR and Section 515 RRH application(s).
After the Agency's initial assessment is complete, the Agency will score and rank complete and eligible application(s) as outlined in this Notice. The Agency will process the applications in order of their ranking (from highest score to lowest score) taking into account available funds. If any loan applications are withdrawn, rejected, or delayed for a period of time that will not permit funding in the current funding cycle, the Agency will process, in rank order, the next loan application as funding levels permit, subject to the goals for geographic distribution of funds as described in section D of this Notice. The Agency reserves the right to offer the applicant less than the funding amount requested. Upon completion of the funding round, the Agency will notify applicants of their score, upon request.
Application scoring will be based on information provided in the applications and in Agency records. A minimum score of 20 points for scoring criteria (1) and (2), along with meeting all other eligibility requirements, e, will be required for a project to receive funding. Meeting the minimum scoring requirements does not guarantee funding. Points will be awarded as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(a) Program participation (3 points). Applicants will receive points for participation in one of the following programs:
(b) Water Conservation (1 point). One point will be awarded for xeriscaping of site landscaping and/or water conservation in irrigation measures to include a recycled water (gray water or storm water) for landscape irrigation covering 50 percent or more of the property's site landscaping needs. To receive points, the architect or consulting landscape architect must illustrate in narrative, draft specifications, and schematic drawings how this will be achieved.
(c) Property Management Credentials (1 point). One point will be awarded if the designated property management company or individuals that will assume maintenance and operation responsibilities upon completion of construction work have a Credential for Green Property Management. Credentialing can be obtained from the National Apartment Association (NAA), National Affordable Housing Management Association, The Institute for Real Estate Management, U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (USGBC LEED) for Operations and Maintenance, or another source with a certifiable credentialing program. To receive points, credentialing must be illustrated in the resume(s) of the property management team and included with the application.
All projects awarded scoring points for energy initiatives will be required to enroll the project in the EPA Portfolio Manager program and the associated EPA Water Score program to track post construction energy consumption data as well as water usage. More information about this program may be found at:
(9)
(10) Projects Providing Access to Supportive Services for Tenants (5 points). Points are awarded to projects that employ a Service Coordinator, documented as a project expense in the most recent agency-approved Form RD 3560-7 Multifamily Housing Project Budget/Utility Allowance, or include units designated as permanent supportive units or for homeless households, documented by an agreement with another Federal or State funding source. To receive points, the applicant must describe the basis for claiming points (
(11)
U.S. Territories are considered distressed and qualify for priority points. For additional information on data sources used for this priority determination, please download the Data Sources for Rural Development Priorities document at the website:
(12)
An applicant would receive priority points if the project is an application from or benefiting a Rural Partner's Network's (RPN) community network. Currently RPN Networks exist in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Use the Community Look-Up map available at
For additional information on data sources used for this priority determination, please download the Data Sources for Rural Development Priorities document at the website:
(13)
• A “brownfield site” (as defined in certain subparagraphs of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)).
• A “metropolitan statistical area” or “non-metropolitan statistical area” that has (or had at any time after 2009).
• 0.17% or greater direct employment or 25% or greater local tax revenues related to the extraction, processing, transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas, and has an unemployment rate at or above the national average unemployment rate for the previous year.
• A census tract (or directly adjoining census tract) in which a coal mine has closed after 1999, or in which a coal-fired electric generating unit has been retired after 2009.
To determine if your project qualifies for points under Option 1 or Option 2, please use the Disadvantaged Community & Energy Community Look-Up Map on the following website:
Successful applicants will receive notification by email for funding from the USDA Rural Development Office of Multifamily Housing. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the award will be approved. Receipt of an award letter does not serve to authorize the applicant to commence performance under the award. Award letters will include conditions that must be met prior to award closing. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by email, detailing why the application was unsuccessful.
There are no known unusual Administrative and National Policy Requirements associated with this program under this Notice.
Performance reporting, including applicable forms, narratives, and other documentation, are to be completed and submitted in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR 3560.308 and the Grant Agreement.
Borrowers must maintain separate financial records for the operation and maintenance of the project and for tenant services. Tenant services will not be funded by RHS. Funds allocated to the operation and maintenance of the project may not be used to supplement
For general questions about this announcement, please contact Jonathan D. Bell, Director, Processing and Report Review Branches, Production and Preservation Division, MFH, RD, USDA, via email:
(a) All iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States. This means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States.
(b) All manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States. This means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States, and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation.
(c) All construction materials are manufactured in the United States. This means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States.
Awards under this announcement for infrastructure projects to non-Federal entities, defined pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1 as any State, local government, Indian Tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization, shall be governed by the requirements of Section 70914 of BABAA within the IIJA, and its implementing regulations. Infrastructure projects include structures, facilities, and equipment that generate, transport, and distribute fuel or energy, including electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Infrastructure projects also include structures, facilities, and equipment for roads, highways, and bridges; public transportation; dams, ports, harbors, and other maritime facilities; intercity passenger and freight railroads; freight and intermodal facilities; airports; water systems, including drinking water and wastewater systems; electrical transmission facilities and systems; utilities; broadband infrastructure; and buildings and real property.
In accordance with BABAA, however, USDA has determined that de minimis, small grants, and minor components shall be waived from the requirements of BABAA, pursuant to a public interest waiver that was granted to the Department on September 13, 2022. Under such waiver, small grants below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, which is currently set at $250,000 shall not be subject to BABAA. Additionally, de minimis and minor components, as described in the Department waiver, are also not subject to BABAA.
Applicants and projects that are subject to BABAA may request other specific waivers, pursuant to the requirements posted at the USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer Office website:
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.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department Commerce.
As a result of these third expedited sunset reviews, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on raw flexible magnets from the People's Republic of China (China) and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Garry Kasparov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1397.
On June 3, 2024, Commerce published in the
On June 14, 2024, we received a timely notice of intent to participate in these sunset reviews from Magnum Magnetics Corporation (Magnum), a domestic interested party, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).
On July 23, 2024, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from other interested parties.
The products covered by the
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing, and publishing notice of, the final results of these sunset reviews in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on brass rod from Israel.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Andrew Hart (AD) at (202) 482-1058 or Zachary Shaykin (CVD) at (202) 482-2638, AD/CVD Operations, Offices II and IV, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on August 5, 2024, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) and its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of brass rod from Israel.
The merchandise covered by these orders is brass rod from Israel. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
On September 19, 2024, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of brass rod that are sold in the United States at LTFV. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) and 736 of the Act, Commerce is issuing this AD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of brass rod from Israel are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Israel, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of brass rod from Israel. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of brass rod from Israel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 14, 2023, the date of publication of the
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of brass rod from Israel, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that accounted for a significant proportion of exports of brass rod from Israel, Commerce extended the four-month period to no more than six-months.
For all companies, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of brass rod from Israel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after June 11, 2024, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
As stated above, based on the above-referenced affirmative final determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of brass rod from Israel,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of brass rod from Israel, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 29, 2023, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of brass rod from Israel, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated countervailing duty subsidy rates are as follows:
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
For all companies, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of brass rod from Israel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 27, 2024, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of
In the
This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to brass rod from Israel and the CVD order with respect to brass rod from Israel, pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products within the scope of these orders are brass rod and bar (brass rod), which is defined as leaded, low-lead, and no-lead solid brass made from alloys such as, but not limited to the following alloys classified under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as C27450, C27451, C27460, C34500, C35000, C35300, C35330, C36000, C36300, C37000, C37700, C48500, C67300, C67600, and C69300, and their international equivalents.
The brass rod subject to these orders has an actual cross-section or outside diameter greater than 0.25 inches but less than or equal to 12 inches. Brass rod cross-sections may be round, hexagonal, square, or octagonal shapes as well as special profiles (
Standard leaded brass rod covered by the scope contains, by weight, 57.0-65.0 percent copper; 0.5-3.0 percent lead; no more than 1.3 percent iron; and at least 15 percent zinc. No-lead or low-lead brass rod covered by the scope contains by weight 59.0-76.0 percent copper; 0-1.5 percent lead; no more than 0.35 percent iron; and at least 15 percent zinc. Brass rod may also include other chemical elements (
Brass rod may be in straight lengths or coils. Brass rod covered by these orders may be finished or unfinished, and may or may not be heated, extruded, pickled, or cold-drawn. Brass rod may be produced in accordance with ASTM B16, ASTM B124, ASTM B981, ASTM B371, ASTM B453, ASTM B21, ASTM B138, and ASTM B927, but such conformity to an ASTM standard is not required for the merchandise to be included within the scope.
Excluded from the scope of these orders is brass ingot, which is a casting of unwrought metal unsuitable for conversion into brass rod without remelting, that contains, by weight, at least 57.0 percent copper and 15.0 percent zinc.
The merchandise covered by these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7407.21.9000, 7407.21.7000, and 7407.21.1500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7403.21.0000, 7407.21.3000, and 7407.21.5000. The HTSUS subheadings and UNS alloy designations are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable (CVD) subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ceramic tile from India. The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Jinny Ahn or Natasia Harrison, 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) 482-0339 or (202) 482-1240, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on May 16, 2024.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is ceramic tile from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Antiqa Minerals (Antiqa) and Win-Tel Ceramics Private Limited (Win-Tel). However, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for all other exporters or producers not individually examined. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's analysis,
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of ceramic tile from India based on a request made by the petitioner.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Antiqa and Win-Tel that are not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in Appendix I to this notice entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in
Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published in the
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination to parties to the proceeding within five days of public announcement of the determination, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the LTFV and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs will be provided in the preliminary scope decision memorandum. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of the ongoing LTFV and CVD ceramic tile investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide, at the beginning of their briefs, a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination, whether imports of ceramic tile from India are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is ceramic flooring tile, wall tile, paving tile, hearth tile, porcelain tile, mosaic tile, flags, decorative tile, finishing tile, and the like (hereinafter ceramic tile). Ceramic tiles are articles containing a mixture of minerals including clay (generally hydrous silicates of alumina or magnesium) that are fired so the raw materials are fused to produce a tile that is less than 3.2 cm in thickness, exclusive of decorative features. All ceramic tile is subject to the scope regardless of end use, surface area, and weight, regardless of whether the tile is glazed or unglazed, regardless of the water absorption coefficient by weight, regardless of the extent of vitrification, and regardless of whether or not the tile is on a backing. Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile “slabs” or “panels” (tiles that are larger than 1 meter
Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile that undergoes minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, subject merchandise includes ceramic tile produced that undergoes minor processing after importation into the United States. Such minor processing includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: beveling, cutting, trimming, staining, painting, polishing, finishing, additional firing, affixing a decorative surface to the tile, or any other processing that would otherwise not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product.
Subject merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of aluminum lithographic printing plates (printing plates) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Ajay Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0208.
On March 1, 2024, Commerce published its
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation are printing plates from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in March 2024, Commerce conducted verification of the subsidy information reported by Fujifilm Printing Plate (China) Co., Ltd. (FFPS) and its cross-owned affiliate Fujifilm (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by interested parties and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In making this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts otherwise available, including with an adverse inference, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For a full discussion of our application of adverse facts available (AFA),
Based on our review and analysis of the information at verification and comments received from interested parties, we made changes to the subsidy rate calculations for FFPS. For a discussion of these changes,
Commerce preliminarily determined, in accordance with sections 703(e)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise for FFPS and Shanghai National Ink Co. Ltd. (Shanghai National).
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and/or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty (CVD) order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, as appropriate, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of printing plates from China. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of printing plates from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, CVDs on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum lithographic printing plates. Aluminum lithographic printing plates consist of a flat substrate containing at least 90 percent aluminum. The aluminum-containing substrate is generally treated using a mechanical, electrochemical, or chemical graining process, which is followed by one or more anodizing treatments that form a hydrophilic layer on the aluminum-containing substrate. An image-recording, oleophilic layer that is sensitive to light, including but not limited to ultra-violet, visible, or infrared, is dispersed in a polymeric binder material that is applied on top of the hydrophilic layer, generally on one side of the aluminum lithographic printing plate. The oleophilic light-sensitive layer is capable of capturing an image that is transferred onto the plate by either light or heat. The image applied to an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the production of newspapers, magazines, books, yearbooks, coupons, packaging, and other printed materials through an offset printing process, where an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the transfer of an image onto the printed media. Aluminum lithographic printing plates within the scope of this investigation include all aluminum lithographic printing plates, irrespective of the dimensions or thickness of the underlying aluminum substrate, whether the plate requires processing after an image is applied to the plate, whether the plate is ready to be mounted to a press and used in printing operations immediately after an image is applied to the plate, or whether the plate has been exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate or remains unexposed and is free of any image.
Subject merchandise also includes aluminum lithographic printing plates produced from an aluminum sheet coil that has been coated with a light-sensitive image-recording layer in a subject country and that is subsequently unwound and cut to the final dimensions to produce a finished plate in a third country (including the United States), or exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate in a third country (including in a foreign trade zone within the United States).
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are lithographic printing plates manufactured using a substrate produced from a material other than aluminum, such as rubber or plastic.
Aluminum lithographic printing plates are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 3701.30.0000 and 3701.99.6060. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this investigation may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 3701.99.3000 and 8442.50.1000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that aluminum lithographic printing plates (printing plates) from Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Caroline Carroll, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4948.
On May 1, 2024, Commerce published in the
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is printing plates from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in May 2024, Commerce conducted on-site verifications of the data reported by Fujifilm and its U.S. affiliate, Fujifilm North America Corporation, using standard verification procedures.
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by interested parties and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Based on our review and analysis of the information at verification and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Fujifilm. For a discussion of these changes,
As discussed in the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for individually investigated exporters and producers, excluding rates that are zero,
In this investigation, Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Miraclon. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero,
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are listed below:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with this final determination to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of aluminum lithographic printing plates, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after May 1, 2024, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties for such entries as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed in the table above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not the respondent listed in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed in the table above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of printing plates from Japan no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum lithographic printing plates. Aluminum lithographic printing plates consist of a flat substrate containing at least 90 percent aluminum. The aluminum-containing substrate is generally treated using a mechanical, electrochemical, or chemical graining process, which is followed by one or more anodizing treatments that form a hydrophilic layer on the aluminum-containing substrate. An image-recording, oleophilic layer that is sensitive to light, including but not limited to ultra-violet, visible, or infrared, is dispersed in a polymeric binder material that is applied on top of the hydrophilic layer, generally on one side of the aluminum lithographic printing plate. The oleophilic light-sensitive layer is capable of capturing an image that is transferred onto the plate by either light or heat. The image applied to an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the production of newspapers, magazines, books, yearbooks, coupons, packaging, and other printed materials through an offset printing process, where an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the transfer of an image onto the printed media. Aluminum lithographic printing plates within the scope of this investigation include all aluminum lithographic printing plates, irrespective of the dimensions or thickness of the underlying aluminum substrate, whether the plate requires processing after an image is applied to the plate, whether the plate is ready to be mounted to a press and used in printing operations immediately after an image is applied to the plate, or whether the plate has been exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate or remains unexposed and is free of any image.
Subject merchandise also includes aluminum lithographic printing plates produced from an aluminum sheet coil that has been coated with a light-sensitive image-recording layer in a subject country and that is subsequently unwound and cut to the final dimensions to produce a finished plate in a third country (including the United States), or exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate in a third country (including in a foreign trade zone within the United States).
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are lithographic printing plates manufactured using a substrate produced from a material other than aluminum, such as rubber or plastic.
Aluminum lithographic printing plates are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 3701.30.0000 and 3701.99.6060. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this investigation may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 3701.99.3000 and 8442.50.1000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain high carbon steel (HCS) wire that are produced in Mexico and assembled or completed into prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) in the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on PC strand from Mexico.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Jonathan Schueler, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9175.
On January 28, 2004, Commerce published in the
On May 16, 2024, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final determination in this inquiry.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by this
This circumvention inquiry covers certain HCS wire imported from Mexico. The HCS wire has a high carbon content (
The inquiry merchandise is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7217.10.8090. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Importers of the subject HCS wire that will not be converted into PC strand in the United States may certify that the HCS wire will not be further processed into subject merchandise covered by the scope of the
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.226.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I. Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made no changes to our
We determine that Mexican-origin HCS wire produced by Deacero S.A.P.I. de CV (Deacero) and assembled or completed into PC strand in the United States is circumventing the
We also determine that U.S. imports of inquiry merchandise exported from Mexico are circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for Mexico, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3) and (m)(1)(ii), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of HCS wire completed or assembled into PC strand in the United States that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 31, 2023, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
For exporters of HCS wire that have a company-specific cash deposit rate under the
Entries for which importers have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation, or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD duties.
To administer the country-wide affirmative determinations of circumvention for Mexico, Commerce established importer certifications which will permit importers to establish
Importers that claim that the entry of HCS wire is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits based on the end-use of such merchandise must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification and retain all supporting documentation for the certification. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit both the importer's certification and the exporter's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as a broker, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all entries of HCS wire from Mexico that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period July 31, 2023, (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of HCS wire that were declared as non-AD/countervailing duty (CVD) type entries (
If it is determined that an importer has not met the certification and/or related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY}.
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of subject high-carbon steel (HCS) wire produced in Mexico that entered under the entry summary number(s), identified below, and which is covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to the facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the exporter's and/or seller's identity and location.
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The imported subject-HCS wire covered by this certification was imported by {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER}.
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The imported HCS wire covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. Select the appropriate statement below:
a. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the end-use of the imported products covered by this certification because my company is the end-user of the imported product covered by this certification and I certify that the imported subject-HCS wire will not be used to produce subject merchandise. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
b. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the end-use of the imported product because my company is not the end-user of the imported product covered by this certification. However, I have been able to contact the end-user of the imported product and confirm that it will not use this product to produce subject merchandise. The end-user of the imported product is {COMPANY NAME} located at {ADDRESS}. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party (
F. The imported subject-HCS wire covered by this certification will not be further processed into prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) in the United States.
G. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
H. I understand that {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
I. I understand that {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce), upon the request of either agency.
J. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce.
K. I understand that failure to maintain the required certifications and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the antidumping duty cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
L. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification. Where a broker or other party was used to facilitate the entry process, {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} obtained the entry summary number and date of entry summary from that party.
M. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
N. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that the revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain pasta (pasta) from Italy and the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and net countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.
Applicable September 19, 2024.
Erin Kearney (AD), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, and Blair Hood (CVD), AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0167 and (202) 482-8329, respectively.
On July 24, 1996, Commerce published in the
On September 19, 2024, the ITC published its determinations, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
The scope of these
Excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are certified by an EU authorized body in accordance with the United States Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program for organic products. The organic pasta certification must be retained by exporters and importers and made available to U.S. Customs and Border Protection or the Department of Commerce upon request.
The merchandise subject to these
The scope of these
Excluded from the scope of these
The merchandise subject to these
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that aluminum lithographic printing plates (printing plates) from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023.
Applicable September 27, 2024.
Benito Ballesteros, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7425.
On May 1, 2024, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is printing plates from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
Commerce preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of printing plates exported by Fujifilm Printing Plate (China) Co., Ltd. (Fujifilm) and the China-wide entity.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in May and June 2024, respectively, Commerce conducted on-site verifications of the data reported by Fujifilm and its U.S. affiliate, Fujifilm North America Corporation, using standard verification procedures.
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by interested parties and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Based on our review and analysis of the information at verification and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Fujifilm. For a discussion of these changes,
Consistent with the
Consistent with the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are listed below:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed in this final determination to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(4) of the Act, because Commerce continues to find that critical circumstances exist for Fujifilm and the China-wide entity, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after February 1, 2024, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce makes an affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce offsets the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rates. However, suspension of liquidation of provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation has been discontinued; therefore, we are not instructing CBP to collect cash deposits based upon the adjusted estimated weighted-average dumping margin for those export subsidies at this time.
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as follows: (1) for the producer/exporter combination listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of subject merchandise that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third country exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of printing plates from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum lithographic printing plates. Aluminum lithographic printing plates consist of a flat substrate containing at least 90 percent Aluminum. The aluminum-containing substrate is generally treated using a mechanical, electrochemical, or chemical graining process, which is followed by one or more anodizing treatments that form a hydrophilic layer on the aluminum-containing substrate. An image-recording, oleophilic layer that is sensitive to light, including but not limited to ultra-violet, visible, or infrared, is dispersed in a polymeric binder material that is applied on top of the hydrophilic layer, generally on one side of the aluminum lithographic printing plate. The oleophilic light-sensitive layer is capable of capturing an image that is transferred onto the plate by either light or heat. The image applied to an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the production of newspapers, magazines, books, yearbooks, coupons, packaging, and other printed materials through an offset printing process, where an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the transfer of an image onto the printed media. Aluminum lithographic printing plates within the scope of this investigation include all aluminum lithographic printing plates, irrespective of the dimensions or thickness of the underlying aluminum substrate, whether the plate requires processing after an image is applied to the plate, whether the plate is ready to be mounted to a press and used in printing operations immediately after an image is applied to the plate, or whether the plate has been exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate or remains unexposed and is free of any image.
Subject merchandise also includes aluminum lithographic printing plates produced from an aluminum sheet coil that has been coated with a light-sensitive image-recording layer in a subject country and that is subsequently unwound and cut to the final dimensions to produce a finished plate in a third country (including the United States), or exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate in a third country (including in a foreign trade zone within the United States).
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are lithographic printing plates manufactured using a substrate produced from a material other than aluminum, such as rubber or plastic.
Aluminum lithographic printing plates are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 3701.30.0000 and 3701.99.6060. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this investigation may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 3701.99.3000 and 8442.50.1000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel (AP) October 15-17, 2024 in Charleston, SC.
The Snapper Grouper AP will meet on Tuesday, October 15, 2024, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.; Wednesday, October 16, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.; and Thursday, October 17, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. until 12 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
Meeting information, including the agenda, overview, briefing book materials, and an online public comment form will be posted on the Council's website at:
The agenda for the Snapper Grouper AP meeting includes: development of a Fishery Performance Report (FPR) for red snapper and an update to the Yellowtail Snapper FPR; discussion of Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule risk scoring for golden tilefish, blueline tilefish, mutton snapper, red snapper, and yellowtail snapper; and an update and discussion about the snapper grouper management strategy evaluation.
The AP will receive a presentation of the latest Southeast Reef Fish Survey data; provide input on planning for 2025 stakeholder engagement meetings; and discuss expected fishery behavioural responses to potential management changes being considered for the black sea bass fishery (Snapper Grouper Amendment 56). The AP will also receive updates on development of Amendment 46 addressing private recreational permitting and education, the Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting program, and other Council programs and initiatives. The AP will provide input and recommendations on agenda items for the Council's consideration and address other items as needed.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) and service(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: October 27, 2024.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletion from the Procurement List.
This action deletes a service from the Procurement List that was furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322 or email
On August 23, 2024 (89 FR 68146), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 28, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Tucker Lucas, 571-372-7574, or
Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol, the United States is required to declare a wide range of public and private nuclear-related activities to the IAEA and potentially provide access to IAEA inspectors for verification purposes. The U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol permits the United States unilaterally to declare exclusions from inspection requirements for activities with direct national security significance.
The contract clause at DFARS 252.204-7010, as prescribed at DFARS 204.470-3, is included in contracts for research and development or major defense acquisition programs involving fissionable materials (
The clause requires a contractor to provide written notification to the applicable DoD program manager and a copy of the notification to the contracting officer if the contractor is required to report its activities under the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol. Upon such notification, DoD will determine if access may be granted to IAEA inspectors, or if a national security exclusion should be applied.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 28, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Tucker Lucas, 571-372-7574, or
DoD uses the information collected in the clauses associated with DFARS parts 208 and 235 to—
• Determine whether to provide precious metals as Government-furnished material;
• Evaluate claims of indemnification for losses or damages occurring under a research and development contract; and
• Keep track of radio frequencies on electronic equipment under research and development contracts so that the user does not override or interfere with the use of that frequency by another user.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young at (703) 953-6092,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-26, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Germany has requested to buy sixty (60) CH-47F Block II Cargo Helicopters with customer-unique modifications; one hundred forty (140) T-55-GA-714A engines (120 installed, 20 spares); seventy-two (72) AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS) (60 installed, 12 spares); and two hundred eighty-four (284) AN/ARC-231A Communications Security (COMSEC) radios (240 installed, 44 spares). Also included are AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets; AN/APR-39C(V)1 Radar Detecting Sets; AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) radios with electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM); military Precise Positioning Service (PPS) (to include SAASM or M-Code); Digital Advanced Flight Control Systems (DAFCS); AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder; AN/ARN-147 very high frequency (VHS) omnidirectional range and instrument landing system (VOR/ILS); AN/ARN-153 Tactical Air Navigation Systems (TACAN); air data computers; AN/APN-209 radar altimeter systems; AN/PYQ-10 simple key loaders; KIV-77 Mode 4/5 IFF Applique; KY-100M narrowband/wideband terminal COMSEC devices; AN/AVS-6 Night Vision Devices (NVD); IDM-401 Improved Data Modem; Extended Range Fuel Systems (ERFS); air-to-air refueling probes; M134 gun mounts; Infrared Suppression System (IRSS); Engine Air Particle Separator (EAPS); Ballistic Protection System (BPS) with Cockpit; cabin sides; Midas Underfloor COOLS; Extended Range Fuel System (ERFS) 800 gal and 500 gal; Forward Area Refueling Equipment (FARE); Tie Down Materiel/Helicopter Under-Slung Load Equipment (HUSLE) for internal and external loads; rotorbrake; rescue hoists; Fast Rope Insertion/Extraction System (FRIES); Electro Optical Infrared Sensors (EO/IR); crash resistant pilot and troop seats; skis; life rafts; litter straps and fittings; mission equipment (
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally which is an important force for political and economic stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Germany's heavy lift capability. Germany intends to use this enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. Germany will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Boeing Helicopter Company, Philadelphia, PA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the temporary deployment of an estimated thirty (30) contractor representatives to Germany's Main Operating Bases (MOBs) for onsite aircraft technical, maintenance, and logistics support as part of a
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Chinook CH-47F is a heavy lift, newly manufactured aircraft. The CH-47F has the Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit, which provides aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems. The CAAS consist of two dual-redundant MIL-STD-1553B data busses and an Ethernet LAN capable of supporting both IEEE 802.3 and ARINC 664. The CAAS includes five multifunction displays (MFDs), two general purpose processor units (GPPUs), two control display units (CDUs), and two data concentrator units (DCUs).
2. The Navigation System will have two military PPS (to include SAASM or M-Code), two Digital Advanced Flight Control Systems (DAFCS), one ARN-147 Very High Frequency (VHS) Omnidirectional Range and Instrument Landing System (VOR/ILS) marker beacon system, one ARN-153 Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN), two air data computers, and two AN/APN-209 Radar Altimeter system. The communications suite is as follows: four each AN/ARC-231A multi-mode radios providing VHF FM, VHF-AM, UHF, HQ II and Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) Satellite Communications (SATCOM), and one each AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) Radio. The Identifier, Friend or Foe (IFF) will be the APX-123A, which provides the additional functionality of MODE. Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) will consist of the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), AN/AAR-57; the Radar Signal Detecting Set (RSDS), AN/APR-39C(V)1; and the Laser Detecting Set, AN/AVR-2B.
3. Support and fielding for the CH-47F, Block II and installed CAAS would require one copy of technical documentation, along with two (2) Contractor Field Service Representatives.
4. Sensitive technologies include:
a. The AN/ARN-147 combines all VHF Omni Ranging/Instrument Landing System (VOR/ILS) functions into one compact, lightweight, VHF navigation receiver.
b. The AN/ARN-153 is an airborne receiver-transmitter component of the Tactical Airborne Navigation (TACAN) avionics system. The AN/ARN-153(V) supports four modes of operation modes; receive, transmit, air-to-air receive, air-to-air transmit-receive.
c. The AN/APN-209 is a pules type, absolute (radar) altimeter that provides an accurate indication of aircraft altitude over all types or terrain surfaces such as foliage, deep snow, water, and land.
d. The AN/ARC-231A is a software-definable radio for military aircraft that provides two-way, multi-mode voice and data communications over a 30 Hz to 512 MHz frequency range. It supports both line-of-sight Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Very High Frequency (VHF) bands with AM, FM, and SATCOM capabilities and includes embedded frequency agile modes, Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM), and anti-jam waveforms such as HAVE QUICK and SINCGARS, Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA), and Integrated Waveform (IW). It provides simultaneous, real-time participation in tactical voice and data communications networks. The embedded RT-1987 radio transceiver will provide National Security Agency (NSA) Tactical Secure Voice Cryptographic Interoperability Specification (TSVCIS) 3.1.1 cryptographic modernization compliance. It also allows for operator-selectable Air Traffic Control (ATC) channel spacing of 5, 8.33, 12.5, and 25kHz steps and other data link and secure communications features, providing battlefield interoperability.
e. The AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) airborne communications system provides embedded Automatic Link Establishment (ALE), serial tone data modem, text messaging, and GPS position reporting functions.
f. The AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder is a space diversity transponder and is installed on various military platforms. It provides identification, altitude, and surveillance reporting in response to interrogations from airborne, ground-based, and surface interrogators.
g. The AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) is an integrated infrared (IR) countermeasures suite utilizing five ultraviolet (UV) sensors to display accurate threat location and dispense decoys and countermeasures either automatically or under pilot or crew control to defeat incoming missile threats.
h. The AN/APR-39 Radar Warning System detects radar-based rangefinders, target designators and beam rider systems targeting an aircraft or vehicle. It is a detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat aircraft and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by laser designated or guided weapons.
i. The AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Set is a passive laser warning system that receives, processes, and displays threat information resulting from aircraft illumination by lasers on the multi-functional display.
j. The KIV-77 is a Common Crypto Applique for IFF that provides Mode 4/5 capability. The KIV-77 Applique physical dimensions are 3.5 in. × 4.25 in. × 1 in., 16-oz. The KIV-77 can be removed from the host.
k. The TSEC KY-100M is a radio encryptor.
l. The AN/PYQ-10 (C) Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a ruggedized, portable, hand-held fill device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring electronic key material and data between compatible end cryptographic units (ECU) and communications equipment. It supports both the DS-101 and DS-102 interfaces, as well as the Crypto Ignition Key, and is compatible with existing ECUs.
m. The Improved Data Modem (IDM) is a multi-channel receive and transmit terminal that interoperates with other digital message systems by processing Variable Message Format (VMF) and Air Force Applications Program Development message traffic on the Tactical internet (TI) and Private Network (PN). The IDM provides the essential routing and gateway functionality necessary to support seamless data communication over combat-net radio (CNR) systems and across multiple tactical networks simultaneously. The IDM provides this functionality on a multi-service basis, supporting Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force operations. The IDM provides a means to participate in Joint Battle Command—Platform/Air (JBC-P/A) communications through the exchange of digital Command and Control (C2) and Situational Awareness (SA) data. The IDM also supports
n. The AN/AVS-6 Military Grade Night Vision Goggles (NVG) are helmet mounted, optoelectronic devices that allow images to be produced in levels of light approaching total darkness. The image may be a conversion to visible light of both visible light and near-infrared.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that the Government of Germany can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Germany.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young at (703) 953-6092,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-37, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Poland has requested to buy thirty-four (34) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATP) with Shipping Containers. Also included are system support and support equipment; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair and return support; integration and test equipment and support; unclassified software delivery and support; unclassified Computer Program Identification Number (CPIN) systems; unclassified publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $124.7 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve the tactical effectiveness of the FA-50 fighter aircraft that Poland is buying from the Republic of Korea by enhancing its abilities to identify targets, track, and engage from a standoff distance; it will also increase interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces. Poland will have no difficulty absorbing these articles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Orlando, Florida. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Poland.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) or LITENING Targeting Pod is a single, lightweight targeting pod for military aircraft that provides positive target identification, autonomous tracking, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate generation, and precise weapons guidance from extended standoff ranges. It incorporates a high-definition mid-wave Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR), dual-mode laser, visible-light high-definition television (HDTV), laser spot tracker, video data link (VDL), and a digital data recorder.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Poland can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Poland.
In notice document 2024-18761 beginning on page 67624 in the issue of Wednesday, August 21, 2024, make the following correction:
The two letters appearing on pages 67624 and 67625 should not have been included in the document.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young at (703) 953-6092,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-20, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Czech Republic has requested to buy equipment and services to refurbish six (6) AH-1Z and two (2) UH-1Y Excess Defense Article (EDA) helicopters. This equipment and services will include: twenty-two (22) T-700 GE 401C engines (16 installed, 6 spares); fourteen (14) Honeywell Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs) w/Precise Positioning Service (PPS) (8 installed, 6 spares); four (4) M240 machine guns; and twenty-four (24) ARC-210 COMSEC radios. Also included is communication equipment; electronic warfare systems; support equipment; spare engine containers; flight training devices; Composite Maintenance trainer; spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $650 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO partner that is an important force for ensuring peace and stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve the Czech Republic's ability to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. The Czech Republic will have no difficulty absorbing these defense articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and services will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Bell Helicopter, Textron, Fort Worth, TX, and General Electric Company, Lynn, MA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of the proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews plus training and maintenance support in-country, on a temporary basis, for a period of sixty (60) months. It will also require three (3) contractor representatives to reside-in country for a period of two (2) years to support this program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopter model have an integrated avionics system (IAS) which includes two (2) mission computers and an automatic flight control system. Each crew station has two (2) 8x6-inch multifunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and one (1) 4.2x4.2-inch dual function LCD display. The communications suite will have COMSEC ARC 210 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) radios with associated communications equipment. The navigation suite includes a Precise Positioning Systems (PPS), Honeywell Embedded GPS Inertial Navigation System (EGI) (SAASM or upgraded equivalent), a digital map system, and a low-aspired air data subsystem, which allows weapons delivery when hovering.
2. The crew is equipped with the Optimized Top Owl (OTO) helmet-mounted sight and display system. The OTO has a Day Display Module (DDM) and a Night Display Module (NDM). The H-1 has survivability equipment including the AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning and Laser Detection System, AN/ALE-47 Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) and the AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) to cover countermeasure dispensers, radar warning, incoming/on-way missile warning and on-fuselage laser-spot warning systems.
3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that the Czech Republic can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the Czech Republic.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young at (703) 953-6092,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-29, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested to buy Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Expeditionary (SURTASS-E) mission systems for Vessels of Opportunity (VOO); a shore processing mission system, a spare SURTASS passive acoustic array; containers; communications parts and support equipment (Classified and Unclassified); software (Classified and Unclassified); publications (Classified and Unclassified); training; U.S. Government and contractor engineering support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $207 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future maritime threats by providing tactical platforms with the detection and cueing of enemy submarines. The ability to provide acoustic Wide Area Surveillance and generate Indications and Warnings to Australian Commands will significantly improve shared maritime security. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin-Syracuse, Syracuse, NY; and Lockheed Martin-Manassas, Manassas, VA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require U.S. Government personnel and U.S. Contractor representatives to visit the Commonwealth of Australia on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements, including program and technical reviews.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Expeditionary (SURTASS-E) mission system is a containerized variant of the passive SURTASS system providing long range detection and cueing for tactical weapons platforms against both diesel and nuclear-powered submarines. SURTASS-E allows the fleet to detect, classify, localize, track, and report emergent threats, thereby improving overall maritime security.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce mission system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).
The OSC is announcing the availability of up to $984,000,000 aggregate funding for direct loans for equipment financing for technologies in the designated covered technology categories.
Applications will be accepted per the terms set forth below.
For questions about this notice, please contact David Vidal, Office of Strategic Capital Director of Credit Programs, at
•
•
•
•
•
○
○
Application Part 2 submissions will be considered on a rolling basis. The Office of Strategic Capital may amend, cancel, or withdraw the Notice of Funding Availability at any time. All changes will be communicated via
•
•
Per 10 U.S.C. 149(e), the Covered Technology Categories are:
(A) Advanced bulk materials;
(B) Advanced manufacturing;
(C) Autonomous mobile robots;
(D) Battery storage;
(E) Biochemicals;
(F) Bioenergetics;
(G) Biomass;
(H) Cybersecurity;
(I) Data fabric;
(J) Decision science;
(K) Edge computing;
(L) External communication;
(M) Hydrogen generation and storage;
(N) Mesh networks;
(O) Microelectronics assembly, testing, or packaging;
(P) Microelectronics design and development;
(Q) Microelectronics fabrication;
(R) Microelectronics manufacturing equipment;
(S) Microelectronics materials;
(T) Nanomaterials and metamaterials;
(U) Open RAN;
(V) Optical communications;
(W) Sensor hardware;
(X) Solar;
(Y) Space launch;
(Z) Spacecraft;
(AA) Space-enabled services and equipment;
(BB) Synthetic biology;
(CC) Quantum computing;
(DD) Quantum security; and
(EE) Quantum sensing.
This Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) from the United States Department of Defense (“DoD” or the “Department”) Office of Strategic Capital (“OSC”) seeks submission of Part 1 of the Application for Loan Financing (“Application Part 1”) from eligible applicants based on criteria set forth in subsequent portions of this document. Successful Application Part 1 submissions may receive an invitation from OSC to submit an Application Part 2.
OSC has the authority to provide multiple forms of assistance, including direct loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance that support commercial supply chains for technologies that are critical to U.S. national security. This inaugural NOFA specifically seeks applications for direct loans that will support modernization of manufacturing equipment in Covered Technology Categories. Applicants are not required to have any past, current, or future DoD or Federal Government contracts or provide sales or services to the Federal Government to be eligible. Subject to additional appropriations, OSC expects to publish opportunities in the future for additional CTCs and types of assistance, including loan guarantees.
This NOFA provides detailed information about the program objectives and requirements applicants will need to meet to receive funding. It also describes the procedures the program will use to evaluate and select applications for funding. Application Part 1, OMB Control Number 0704-0694, is due no later than 4:59 p.m. Eastern Time on February 3, 2025. OSC will invite certain applicants to submit Part 2 of the application (OMB Control Number 0704-0694, “Application Part 2”) based on its evaluation of Application Part 1. OSC may provide further guidance on these requirements and procedures in subsequent publications and through a series of public outreach sessions, information about which will be available at OSC's website:
OSC reserves the right to amend or modify any of the terms, procedures, or conditions set forth in this Notice of Funding Availability.
OSC's mission is to attract and scale private capital to technologies critical to the national and economic security of the United States. The NDAA (as defined below) states OSC shall:
• develop, integrate, and implement capital investment strategies proven in the commercial sector to shape and scale investment in critical technologies and assets;
• identify and prioritize promising critical technologies and assets that require funding and have the potential to benefit DoD; and
• make eligible investments in such technologies and assets, such as supply chain technologies not always supported through direct investment.
The United States is in a global competition to be the world's leader in emerging and critical technologies. These technologies are vital to creating enduring national security advantages for the U.S., its allies, and partners. Today, the private sector funds the majority of technological research and development, and, consequently, private capital is the driving resource that determines the United States' research and development agenda.
DoD will utilize financial tools available to OSC to attract and scale the private capital needed to commercialize and scale critical technologies that enhance the United States' broader national security and economic interests. OSC is authorized to provide loans and loan guarantees to eligible projects in select covered technology categories. OSC aims to build on successful examples of administering efficient, cost-effective financial tools to advance national security priorities. By aligning government and private sector incentives around technologies vital to national security and economic interests, DoD aims to use the power of the market and economic competition to attract the capital required for critical technology investment.
OSC aims to support entities in expanding and modernizing their production capabilities while simultaneously encouraging private capital investment. A key goal in OSC's efforts is to attract and scale private capital alongside public funds, rather than relying on public funding alone for investment in national and economic security priorities. For this inaugural NOFA, OSC's objective is to provide direct loans to entities for equipment modernization, refurbishment, and expansion efforts in existing manufacturing facilities that support the CTCs.
This NOFA is issued pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, Public Law 118-31, section 903 (the “NDAA”), which authorized the Office of Strategic Capital. Under the NDAA, OSC is authorized to carry out a pilot program to provide direct loans to eligible entities for investments in technologies that fall within specified CTCs and have existing or forecasted commercial applications beyond solely defense purposes. The eligibility and selection criteria for investments include compliance with statute, the extent to which an investment supports U.S. national security or economic interests, the impact that direct loans would have on the project or transaction, and the creditworthiness of the investment, among other factors OSC will evaluate in the application process.
To accomplish program objectives described in section 3(a) and section 3(b) above, OSC will provide direct loans to eligible applicants. Additional financial products will be available in future NOFAs.
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47) (the “Appropriations Act”) included appropriations to support up to $984,000,000 in direct loans, available for obligation through September 26, 2026. Total amount of funding for direct loans under this NOFA may include future appropriations. Amounts funded under this NOFA will depend on the creditworthiness of applications received and program priorities. Remaining funding, if any, will be used for future funding opportunities.
OSC reserves the right to issue funds up to the amounts appropriated under fiscal year 2024 under this NOFA. Additionally, OSC retains the discretion to apply funds from future appropriations to loans issued under this NOFA. OSC will determine the total level of funding to be issued based on current and future appropriations.
Based on statutory authority provided in section 903(b)(3)(A) of the NDAA, OSC has established requirements for terms and conditions for direct loans under this NOFA. Specific terms will be developed for each transaction, but this section describes guiding principles for certain terms.
The interest rate on direct loans provided under this program shall be set depending upon factors specific to the transaction and market factors at the time of approval, including prevailing market interest rates and the credit risk of the transaction, but in no event at a rate less than the yield on marketable United States Department of the Treasury securities of a similar maturity.
The maturity date for direct loans under this program shall be determined depending upon factors specific to the transaction at the time of approval, including the credit risk of the transaction, use of loan proceeds, useful life of the underlying assets, and collateral.
Direct loans provided under this program may be prepaid without penalty.
OSC loans are senior loans and shall not be subordinated to any other indebtedness, subject to certain exceptions. The form of acceptable security will be determined based on factors specific to transactions and can include a lien on pledged collateral, or other form of security acceptable to OSC in its sole discretion. In some cases, pursuant to the NDAA, OSC may make an unsecured corporate loan.
OSC reserves the right to determine terms on a transaction-by-transaction basis under this program. Transactions may be subject to such other terms, conditions, covenants, representations, warranties, and requirements as OSC deems appropriate.
The total amount of direct loan financing provided under this NOFA will vary by project or transaction and applicants will be required to specify their financing needs in their Application Part 1. For this NOFA, a project or transaction is defined as the comprehensive effort encompassing the
Under this NOFA, OSC will accept loan applications for loan amounts of no less than $10 million and not exceeding $150 million. The NDAA section 903(d) requires not less than 80% of the total capital invested in a CTC-focused industry come from non-Federal sources at the time of OSC investment. While OSC will monitor compliance with this requirement, OSC generally does not expect this requirement to restrict investment into individual projects.
The eligibility information below applies to this inaugural NOFA. OSC may revise the scope of eligible projects for future funding opportunities.
The following entities (including relationships by and among entities,
• an individual;
• a corporation;
• a partnership, which may include a public-private partnership, limited partnership, or general partnership;
• a trust;
• a State, including a political subdivision or any other instrumentality of a State;
• a Tribal government or consortium of Tribal governments;
• any other governmental entity or public agency in the United States, including a special purpose district or public authority, including a port authority, or
• a multi-State or multi-jurisdictional group of public entities.
To ensure the effective allocation of direct loans, OSC will require that borrowing entities (or sponsors) demonstrate a minimum of three years of operating history. OSC reserves the right to waive or increase this requirement in its sole discretion if the application demonstrates exceptional alignment with NOFA objectives and requirements.
Eligible projects or transactions under this NOFA must align with authorizing language provided in the NDAA, which requires that all eligible investments made:
• are in a CTC, and
• are not a technology that solely has defense applications.
For this inaugural NOFA, OSC aims to fund the procurement or rehabilitation of equipment for manufacturing processes in the CTCs.
OSC will evaluate project applications for existing Federal involvement. The Section 8140 Eligibility Criteria were developed pursuant to section 8140 of the Appropriations Act. The third proviso of section 8140 requires the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to jointly develop criteria for “eligibility for direct loans and loan guarantees that limit Federal participation in a project consistent with the requirements for the budgetary treatment provided for in section 504 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (“FCRA”; 2 U.S.C. 661c) and based on the recommendations contained in the 1967 Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. All applicants submitting applications for funding under this NOFA must complete responses for the Section 8140 Eligibility Criteria. OSC and OMB will perform a holistic review of the responses to the Section 8140 Eligibility Criteria responses and determine whether the application meets the criteria.
1. Is the prospective borrower seeking financing for a project or transaction to produce a technology, product, asset, and/or service for which the Federal Government is the sole user?
2. Is the prospective borrower seeking financing for a project or transaction to produce a technology, product, asset, and/or service where repayment is majority dependent on current or anticipated Federal sources (
1. Is the borrower a public-private partnership, or does the Federal Government otherwise have a role in the governance of the activity financed by the proposed transaction (
2. Is the proposed transaction financing an activity for which a Federal agency has received previous authorization in legislation, and without which authorization a private sector entity would not engage in the activity?
3. In the absence of an OSC loan, is the project economically viable (
4. Does the transaction depend on the Federal Government making other in-kind contributions (land, real estate, right-of-way, etc.)? If yes, please explain.
5. What, if any, current Federal capital assets (
6. To your knowledge, excepting an event of default, would the Federal Government be required to cover financial losses associated with the project?
In the Application Part 1, if the applicant answers “yes” to any of the Federal Transaction Screening Criteria, the applicant will be invited to supplement the answer to provide further detail.
Direct loans made for eligible projects through OSC may be used to finance the purchase or rehabilitation of equipment, as well as the following costs directly associated with the financed equipment:
• Pre-installation costs, such as planning, development, engineering analysis, financing, legal expenses, and associated fees (excepting application costs, which shall not be covered);
• Ancillary costs, such as preparation of facility, permitting, utility upgrades, delivery, calibration, first-article testing and/or qualification, integration with existing systems, as well as associated modifications or software necessary for operational use;
• Installation costs, including cost of labor and materials required for installation;
• Appraisal and inspection costs, appraisals required to determine value of asset, or appraisal or inspections required by law and industry regulations; and
• Refinancing costs, on a case-by-case basis.
For any equipment that is purchased prior to submission of the Application Part 1, any of the above costs that have
This section 7 describes the application completion and submission process. First, potential applicants will submit Application Part 1 complete with descriptive information about the equipment purchase or rehabilitation and the potential borrower. Next, Application Part 1 will be reviewed using the criteria described in sub-section D below. Finally, applicants who meet these criteria will then be invited to apply and submit Application Part 2.
Application Part 1, Application Part 2, FAQs, and other materials are available at
a. All instructions required for submitting Part 1 are located on the OSC web page,
b. Applicants can submit only one application.
c. A parent company that has subsidiaries applying for funding based on the parent's audited financials can only be the proposed guarantor for one application for funding under this notice. If multiple subsidiaries apply based on the same parent audited financial statement, only one application for one subsidiary can be funded, chosen at OSC's discretion.
d. Applications and supporting documents will not be accepted through mail or courier delivery, in-person delivery, or fax.
Subject to OSC availability, Applicants can request pre-application consultation sessions with OSC prior to completion of Application Part 1. This optional pre-application consultation can be useful for feedback in anticipation of review of materials. Topics of discussion may include but are not limited to: OSC's economic and national security goals; the scope of the OSC mission; the application process; CTCs; long-term investment plans for capital expenditures, as well as standard, market-oriented terms and conditions for loans. No findings from a pre-application consultation shall be used to evaluate an Application Part 1 or Application Part 2 and OSC shall make no binding agreements whatsoever with applicants during a pre-application consultation.
Application Part 1 submissions must be received by 4:59 p.m. Eastern Time on February 3, 2025. Application Part 1 submissions received after this date shall not be considered or reviewed. For all Application Part 1 submissions, OSC and OMB will assess whether the proposed project meets minimum eligibility requirements described in this NOFA as well as the loan proposal and supporting project information. OSC reserves the right to reopen this NOFA for the purpose of additional submissions of new or amended applications or to offer additional notices of funding availability.
During both the Application Part 1 and Application Part 2 evaluation, OSC will assess the degree to which the applicant (including the borrower, sponsor, or guarantor, as applicable) or the project or transaction is subject to Foreign Influence and Adversarial Capital (each as defined below). The scope of the assessment will include the entity's customers, suppliers, management team, board of directors or equivalent governing body, the entity's ownership, as well as other contractual relationships.
For the purposes of this NOFA these terms can be clarified as described below:
In connection with any concerns about Foreign Influence or Adversarial Capital, OSC reserves the right to employ mitigation agreements or other measures during the application process, including not approving a loan application.
OSC will review eligible Application Part 1 submissions and prioritize them by selection criteria, which include readiness to proceed and alignment with OSC's mission. Following review, OSC will invite applicants to submit Application Part 2. At that time, OSC will furnish an application number for employment throughout the remainder of the application process.
Application Part 1 will be assessed and prioritized on factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
OSC is guided by the OSC mission statement: to attract private capital to national security priorities and scale private investment into critical technologies. Successful applicants will have a demonstrated investment in one or more CTCs, either through previous actions or a comprehensive business plan.
Applicants that align with covered technologies eligible for investment and are not solely for defense applications, as outlined in the NDAA will be eligible for consideration.
Applicants that align with CTCs for equipment modernization efforts in existing manufacturing facilities will be prioritized under this NOFA.
Applicants for projects or transactions for which a technology or product can be quickly brought to market and made commercially available will be prioritized in the evaluation process.
Applicants in a position to execute on the purchase of equipment will be prioritized in the evaluation process.
The extent to which the project or transaction uses available funding (
OSC will review applicants for a demonstrated history of reliable credit repayment. OSC will not issue a loan unless it determines that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of repaying
Projects or transactions may be prioritized based on a technical assessment associated with the subject application.
Projects or transactions may be prioritized, at the discretion of OSC, based on the prospective benefits or results of the subject application.
In the case of equipment purchased prior to submission of the application, OSC may prioritize projects or transactions associated with current financing or obligations to maximize the benefit of the subject offering.
Projects or transactions may be prioritized on other factors relevant to OSC, the applicant, or the subject application as appropriate.
Following review, at any time following the submission of Application Part 1, the OSC project development team may notify applicants of their status and invite them to submit Application Part 2.
a. OSC will invite applicants to complete Application Part 2. Unsolicited Application Part 2 submissions will not be reviewed. OSC will employ the contact and notice information listed in Application Part 1 to send its invitation.
b. All materials and instructions for completing an application are located on the OSC web page,
c. Applicants can submit only one application.
d. A parent company that has subsidiaries applying for funding based on the parent's audited financials can only be the proposed guarantor for one application for funding under this notice. If multiple subsidiaries apply based on the same parent audited financial statement, only one application can be funded, chosen at OSC's discretion based on the factors in section 6(D)(ii) above.
e. Applications and supporting documents will not be accepted through mail or courier delivery, in-person delivery, or fax.
Following receipt of a complete Application Part 2, the proposed project will undergo environmental, credit, legal, and technical due diligence on the proposed project or transaction, including compliance with relevant Bank Secrecy Act requirements. This review will inform a final determination on whether to make commit to a project and on what terms. OSC may request the applicant to retain outside consulting services to assess relevant aspects of the project. Those costs may be included in the project costs listed in the financial plan and may be the responsibility of the applicant, as determined by OSC. In some cases, OSC may request additional information to ensure the best financing options for an applicant's needs.
OSC will conduct the business, technical, and legal review during the due diligence phase to evaluate the financial and legal soundness of the proposed project or transaction. The areas that the origination team evaluates include the following:
• Proposed Capitalization Structure;
• Financial History of Key Participants—Borrower(s), Guarantor(s), Contractors(s);
• Financial Condition of Key Participants;
• Terms and Conditions of Project Contracts;
• Target Market and Marketing Strategy;
• Proposed Project Management Team and Operating Plan;
• Financial Projections of the Project;
• Historical Financial Performance;
• Legal, Regulatory, and Tax Issues;
• Bank and Trade References; and
• Character Risk Due Diligence.
Following due diligence, the application materials and findings will undergo an approval process within OSC. OMB will evaluate the final subsidy cost of the direct loan.
Following OSC and OMB approval processes, OSC may share a final term sheet and conditional letter of commitment with the applicant. At this stage, OSC may seek the applicant's approval for employment of consultants or advisors to perform any confirmatory due diligence items which may include, but are not limited to, independent engineering assessment, appraisals, and insurance evaluations.
Applicants should make efforts to complete the process of registering for the System for Award Management (
In considering applications, OSC will assess the record of the applicant, as well as of its corporate parent, in executing programs or activities under Federal grants, cooperative agreements, procurement awards, and other transactions, as well as its integrity and business ethics. As part of this consideration, OSC will review and consider the non-publicly available information about that applicant in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through Responsibility/Qualification Records on
• Beginning on January 2, 2025, Application Part 1 will be accepted until 4:59 p.m. Eastern Time on February 3, 2025.
• Application Part 2 will be accepted on a rolling basis following OSC's invitation to complete an Application Part 2. The invitation to complete an Application Part 2 will include a submission deadline.
• OSC will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. However, OSC reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the Application Part 1 and Application Part 2.
OSC recognizes the importance of protecting proprietary or otherwise confidential business information. OSC and the Department will follow applicable laws, including, for example, the Trade Secrets Act, and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), as well as the DoD Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) policy to protect such information.
All Federal employees are bound by the Trade Secrets Act, which makes Federal employees criminally liable for the unauthorized disclosure of “information [that] concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association”. Violations of the Trade Secrets Act may result in the loss of employment, fines, or imprisonment. OSC will also ensure any contractors or consultants working in support of OSC uphold relevant standards for protecting the Confidential Business Information of any applicant.
Exemption 4 of FOIA protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential. This exemption is designed to protect the interests of both the government and private parties doing business with the government by exempting the disclosure of information that is customarily kept confidential by the company providing the information. The Department will apply this exemption to FOIA requests in accordance with the law and the Department's FOIA regulations.
CUI policy outlines the handling, dissemination, and protection of information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with law, regulations, and government-wide policies. CUI policy encompasses a wide range of information categories including proprietary business information, defined as material and information relating to, or associated with, a company's products, business, or activities, including but not limited to financial information; data or statements; trade secrets; product research and development; existing and future product designs and performance specifications. The policy mandates proper marking, handling, and dissemination practices to prevent unauthorized access and ensure the protection of sensitive information, thereby enhancing operational security and reducing the potential damage associated with data breaches. Instructions for the identification and marking of information or documents that the applicant treats as confidential are in included in Application Part 1 and on the OSC website at
In the case of an eligible investment made through a direct loan, OSC requires not less than 80% of the total capital invested in a CTC-focused industry come from non-Federal sources at the time of OSC investment. OSC will evaluate applications against this requirement by sector and covered technologies. OSC will monitor this requirement but based on OSC's market research to date, OSC generally does not expect this requirement to restrict investment into individual projects under this NOFA.
Funds made available under this NOFA may only be put to eligible uses. In addition, funds made available through this NOFA may not be used for any purpose that would violate the following laws and regulations:
•
•
•
•
Additionally, OSC funds may not be used for any illegal or other prohibited purpose.
Under this NOFA, financing for equipment modernization and expansion may constitute a major Federal action and cross-cutting regulations may apply. Accordingly, receiving financial credit support may—in certain circumstances—require borrowers to comply with a variety of Federal environmental, labor, transportation, and equipment sourcing requirements.
In certain circumstances, and based on potential borrowers' responses to Application Part 1, applicants may be required to provide a description of whether and how they intend to utilize domestically produced iron, steel, and construction materials as part of their projects, including for non-Federal entities how they plan to meet any applicable legal requirements pursuant to the Build America, Buy America Act. Applicants may also be required to comply with Davis-Bacon and its related acts (40 U.S.C. 3141
In addition, applicants may be required to provide environmental studies necessary to verify compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The applicant will also be responsible for obtaining and complying with applicable Federal, State, and local permits such as those required under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. OSC expects that each applicant invited to submit an Application Part 2 will be prepared to submit required environmental studies as outlined in the application requirements. OSC encourages applicants to begin preparing for the environmental review
In connection with any loans issued by OSC and depending on the nature of the project or transaction, borrowers may be required to adhere to additional regulations. OSC and potential borrowers (or sponsors) will determine which regulations shall apply during the development of legal documentation.
OSC may utilize independent technical, financial, environmental, insurance, or other consultants and contractors and outside legal counsel during the due diligence process. Subject to the express agreement of the applicant, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all expenses charged by the independent consultants or contractors and OSC outside legal counsel in connection with an application. In such case, OSC shall not be responsible for expenses incurred if an application is denied.
Funding for the program is contingent upon the availability of appropriations. In no event will OSC be responsible for application preparation costs. Neither publication of this NOFA nor invitation to complete an Application Part 2 will oblige OSC to fund any specific project or transaction or to obligate available funds. This NOFA also is not intended to and does not create any rights enforceable by any alleged third-party beneficiaries.
OSC is not under any obligation to provide additional future funding in connection with funding made under this NOFA.
OSC understands the importance of undertaking systemic data collection and rigorous evaluative activities to assess the outcomes related to funds given under this NOFA. OSC is committed to this goal, and all applicants should expect this will be a requirement of funding.
All funding recipients will be expected to comply with all reporting requirements, as well as program evaluation activities undertaken by OSC, in a format acceptable to OSC.
OSC may publish generalized information through the review, selection, and loan issuance process. OSC may inform and, to the extent required by law, seek consent from applicants of any such disclosures. In addition, as will be set forth in the terms and conditions of each loan, successful applicants will be expected to support program and project reviews, audits, and program evaluation activities, including by submitting required financial and performance information and other relevant data in an accurate and timely manner, making available documents and other records related to the project upon request, and by cooperating with OSC and external program evaluators, including the Office of the Inspector General. Certain post-loan issuance progress reporting may also be made public.
OSC may also publish aggregated information from Application Part 1 and Application Part 2.
Any decision by OSC to reject an Application Part 1 as ineligible, or to deny an Application Part 2, shall be final and non-appealable. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified of a denial by email and will have the opportunity to receive a debriefing. Unsuccessful applications will be retained in accordance with Department of Defense recordkeeping requirements.
DoD is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young at (703) 953-6092,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Slovakia has requested to buy one hundred ninety-two (192) M1278A1/A2 Heavy Gun Carriers Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) as well as M153 Common Remote Weapons Stations (CROWS) with Display and Control Panels (DCP); M2 Quick Change Barrels (QCB) .50 caliber machine guns; MK19 40mm grenade launchers; M2A1 machine guns; M4A1 Joint Chemical Agent Detectors; AN/VAS-5B(V)2 Driver's Vision Enhancers (DVE); JLTV kits; special tools to support the JLTV; JLTV spare parts; M205 gun mounts; basic issue items for CROWS; CROWS DCP retrofit kits; AN/VRC-104 radio kits; 16 port network switch kits; Silent Watch energy storage kits; DVE installation kits; M4A1 detector kits; M1114 turret rings and hatches; Maintenance Support Devices (MSD) with wireless at-platform test sets; Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE) sensor modules; display control modules; bracket assembly; electronics components assembly; CROWS appended trainers; CROWS diagnostic kits; CROWS maintenance tool sets; M2 Small Arms Tool Kits; Small Arms MK19 Tool Kits; M2 spare parts; MK93 weapon mounts; Toughbook laptops with interactive electronic technical manuals (IETM) and cables; JLTV contractor spare parts support; CROW Systems spare parts support; Maintenance Support Items (MSI) in support of MK19; MK19 Mod III spare parts support; CROWS spare parts; CROWS Basic Issue Items (BII) boresight kit components; Total Package Fielding; Field Service Representative support; U.S. government technical assistance; training; technical publications/manuals; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $250 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Slovakia's capability to meet current and future threats by providing the Slovak Land Forces with vehicles to support increased mobility and enhanced protection for ground units. The JLTV procurement would also enable divestiture of Russian-produced equipment, as JLTVs would replace Soviet-era personnel carriers. Procurement of the JLTV would represent a major milestone in Slovakia's goal of developing a capable, twenty-first century military which can meet its national defense needs and effectively contribute to NATO operations. Slovakia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Oshkosh Corporation and Oshkosh Defense, LLC in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Slovakia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program is a light tactical vehicle designed to replace the U.S. military's aging High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle fleet. It was designed to close the existing gap in payload, performance, and protection with our adversaries during multi-domain operations. It is an optimal choice for a spectrum of light tactical vehicle missions anywhere in the world. All JLTV mission variants include a strong balance of protection, maneuverability, speed, reliability, and combat support/combat service support capability that far surpasses any similar vehicle in its weight class today.
2. The JLTV is designed to be a system of systems. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle uses a modular design that allows it to integrate with various materiel and equipment used by U.S. forces in tactical operations.
3. The JLTV has inherent armor built into the base vehicle referred to as A-Kit armor. This A-Kit inherent armor provides both opaque and transparent armor solutions to provide 360-degree azimuthal (
4. The AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer is a compact thermal camera providing armored vehicle drivers with day or nighttime visual awareness in clear or reduced vision (fog, smoke, dust) situations. The system provides the driver a 180-degree viewing angle using a high-resolution infrared sensor and image stabilization to reduce the effect of shock and vibration. The viewer and monitor are ruggedized for operation in tactical environments.
5. The Common Remote Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) is an externally mounted weapon mounting and control system that allows the gunner to remain protected inside the vehicle while firing a variety of crew served weapons. The CROWS provides remote day and night sighting and ballistic control capacity, providing first-burst engagement of targets at maximum effective weapon range while on the move.
6. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
7. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
8. A determination has been made that Slovakia can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
9. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Slovakia.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 28, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Gaby Watts, 202-987-0429.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This information collection requests approval for a revision to a previously approved collection that includes annual reporting requirements to comply with the requirements of the HEERF program and obtain information on how the funds were used. The revision simplifies the collection by substantially reducing the number of items because specific grant activities within HEERF have expired and many of the items have become moot. In accordance with the Recipients Funding Certification and Agreements executed by HEERF grantees, the Secretary may specify additional forms of reporting.
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Request for information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is issuing this RFI to request information from interested parties of DOE's intent to release a solicitation for applications, and to seek advance notice of an intent to submit applications in the form of a Letter of Interest (LOI), from nuclear reactor owners or operators for certification and allocation of credits
Submission of LOIs is requested on or before October 28, 2024.
Interested parties may submit an LOI as an attachment by email to
Requests for additional information or questions about the RFI may be sent to Theodore Taylor, Civil Nuclear Credit Program Manager, at
As energy markets and economic circumstances continue to shift, the United States has lost approximately 10,200 megawatts of nuclear energy capacity with the premature closures of 13 commercial reactors.
CNC Award Cycles 1 and 2 were released in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Under the CNC Program, DOE certifies operating nuclear reactors projected to cease operations due to economic factors and whose closure would result in a projected increase in air pollutants, if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reasonable assurance the reactor will continue to operate safely. Certification of eligibility to apply for credits requires that the nuclear reactor meet certain economic and other criteria. The CNC Program identifies specific eligibility criteria and provides discretion for the Secretary to define additional eligibility criteria for certification of the qualifying nuclear reactor. Credits will be awarded over a four-year period beginning on the date of the selection. Nuclear reactor owners or operators may apply for recertification after that time and additional credits may be allocated through September 30, 2031, subject to the availability of funds.
More detailed information about the CNC Program can be found at
Subject to availability of funds, DOE is planning up to $980 million for Award Cycle 3. Prior to releasing the Guidance for Award Cycle 3, DOE is requesting that nuclear reactor owners or operators interested in applying for certification and allocation of credits under the CNC Program provide advance notice of intent to apply in the form of a Letter of Interest (LOI) to be submitted no later than 30 days after this RFI notice. Submissions of LOIs that comply with relevant requirements, as outlined in the Business Proprietary Information section will be kept strictly confidential.
LOI responses shall include:
The responses received from nuclear reactors owners or operators will assist DOE in assessing the CNC Program's timing and resources for Award Cycle 3. Any information obtained as a result of this RFI is intended to be used by DOE on a non-attribution basis for planning and strategy development; this RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for applications. No application submittals are required at this time. Responses to this RFI will be treated as information only. Respondents are advised that DOE is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to any further actions related to this topic.
An LOI containing the required information as stated in this section will be marked confidential as described in the Business Proprietary Information section.
Responses containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be conspicuously marked as described in this section. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The U.S. Federal Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information and may use or disclose such information for any purpose.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information believed to be business proprietary and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “Business Proprietary” including all the information believed to be proprietary, and one copy of the document marked “non-Proprietary” deleting all information believed to be business proprietary. DOE will make its own determination about the business proprietary status of the information and treat it according to its
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 20, 2024, by Maria D. Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, October 23, 2024; 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. MDT.
Sun Valley Lodge, 1 Sun Valley Road, Sun Valley, Idaho 83353. This meeting will be open to the public in-person at the Sun Valley Lodge or virtually via Zoom. To attend virtually, please contact Danielle Miller, ICP Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) Administrator, by email at
Danielle Miller, ICP CAB Administrator, by email at
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Energia Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC (ESJ US or Applicant) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before October 28, 2024.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Janessa Zucchetto, 240-474-8226
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C.
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export. (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) by Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On August 16, 2024, ESJ US filed an application (Application or App.) with DOE for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico. App. at 1. According to the Application, ESJ US is a power marketer and a Delaware limited liability company authorized to operate in California.
The Applicant represents that their exports would “not impair the sufficiency of electric supply, nor would it impede or tend to impede regional coordination of electric utility planning or operation.”
The existing international transmission facility to be utilized by the Applicant has been previously authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and is appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning ESJ US's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-516. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Jerrod L. Harrison, Sempra Infrastructure, 488 8th Avenue, HQ12, San Diego, CA 92101,
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On July 21, 2023, Northern States Power Company filed a relicense application for the 1.2-megawatt White River Hydroelectric Project No. 2444 (project). The project is located on the White River in Ashland and Bayfield Counties, New York.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on June 14, 2024, 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. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the 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 information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. The EA will be issued for a 30-day comment period. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Nicholas Ettema at (312) 596-4447 or
On September 23, 2024, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL24-139-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Willowbrook Solar I, LLC's (Willowbrook) Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential,
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL24-139-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL24-139-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2024), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link 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 on September 12, 2024, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Panhandle), 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Panhandle's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-83-000, for authorization to reduce the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of a 16.5-mile-long, 6-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, from 960 psig to 900 psig located in Audrain and Montgomery Counties, Missouri (Wellsville Lateral MAOP Reduction Project). Panhandle states that the project will reduce the lateral inspection costs and provide operational flexibility to its system. There are no costs associated with the project, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director of Certificates, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, or call (713) 989-2605, or fax (713) 989-1205, or by email to
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 22, 2024. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
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
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before November 22, 2024. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP24-519-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP24-519-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director of Certificates, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the
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
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments and 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 on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
The project would also utilize existing portions of unknown lengths of U.S. highway 93 and an existing unimproved, unpaved vehicle track as the proposed western access road, and an unknown number of existing access roads and tracks of unknown length to access the proposed transmission line and temporary explosives storage facilities. Additionally, an unknown number of existing power distribution lines would need to be re-routed and upgraded before construction of the project to avoid impacts as a result of lower reservoir construction and to facilitate crossings at the western access road. Further, an unidentified ridge road of unknown length would need to be rerouted to bypass construction and permanent facilities. NV Energy would also need to design and construct a new bay at the Robinson Summit Substation for the interconnection of the project.
The water used for construction, to initially fill the new lower reservoir, and to provide make-up water would come from a proposed wellfield pumping array composed of four new approximately 800-foot-deep, 14-inch-diameter groundwater wells. Each well would contain a submersible pump capable of continuously producing approximately 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm), resulting in 3,000 gpm for the system and a 1,000-gpm redundant reserve. Each well would connect to an approximately 4-mile-long buried pipeline that would increase from 8-inch to 16-inch-diameter and would connect to the lower reservoir through a buried concrete trench near the crest of the lower reservoir dam. The initial volume of water necessary to fill the lower reservoir is estimated to be 5,000 acre-feet and would be filled over a 12- to 18-month period. It is estimated that the project would need approximately 560 acre-feet of water each year to replenish water lost through seepage, leakage, and evaporation. Once the lower reservoir is filled, approximately 4,082 acre-feet could be cycled between the lower reservoir and upper reservoir each day. A proposed 2,600-foot-deep, 500 gpm well and water conveyance facilities would be constructed near the Duck Creek Range crest and upper reservoir to provide water for construction, hydrogeologic analysis, groundwater monitoring, and initial fill.
The project is designed to generate electricity on demand for up to 8 hours each day at the maximum generating capacity. The estimated annual generation is 2,400 gigawatt-hours per year.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register at
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
o. 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
p. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission issues an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
In addition to written comments solicited by this notice, Commission staff will hold three public scoping meetings at the times and locations noted below. All interested individuals, resource agencies, Native American Tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend any of the meetings to assist Commission staff in identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
White Pine and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project beginning at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 2024. All interested individuals, resource agencies, Native American Tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend the site review. Attendees are responsible for their own vehicle transport and should wear appropriate outdoor clothing and footwear. The existing road to the upper reservoir site is steep and rocky; therefore, attendees wishing to see the upper reservoir site should plan on driving their own 4x4, high clearance, off-road capable vehicle to access that particular site. Persons planning on participating in the site visit must RSVP to Mr. Gregory Copeland of rPlus Energies at
Individuals, NGOs, Native American Tribes, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA document. At the start of each meeting, Commission staff will provide a brief overview of the meeting format and objectives. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter (with Commission staff present). This format is designed to receive the maximum number of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, Commission staff may conclude the meeting a half hour earlier than the scheduled time. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system. If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in writing or provided orally at a scoping session. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from White Pine will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
q.
Scoping Document 1 Issued—September 2024.
Acceptance and Scoping Notice Issued—September 2024.
Scoping Document 1 Comments Due—November 2024.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if needed)—December 2024.
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis—April 2025.
Comments, Recommendations and Agency Terms and Conditions/Prescriptions Due—June 2025.
Applicant's Reply Comments Due—July 2025.
Commission Issues Draft NEPA Document—January 2026.
Commission Issues Final NEPA Document—July 2026.
On February 20, 2024, Isabella Partners (licensee) filed an application for a capacity amendment for the Isabella Hydroelectric Project No. 8377. The project is located on the Kern River in Kern County, California at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)' Isabella Dam on lands administered by the Corps.
Isabella Partners proposes to construct and operate a new 5-megawatt (MW) generating unit which would be located in a new 40-foot-by-45-foot concrete structure adjacent to the existing powerhouse, resulting in an increase of the project's total installed capacity from 12.8 MW to 17.8 MW. Currently, flows greater than the 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity of Unit 3 and less than the 500 cfs minimum operating range of Units 1 and 2 are discharged through the existing bypass channel. The proposed 5-MW addition (Unit 4) would allow Isabella Partners to generate power at flows between 100 and 500 cfs. Water released from the proposed unit would be discharged through the existing tailrace. Isabella Partners would continue to operate the project under the 1993 Corps Memorandum of Agreement and there would be no changes in water releases to the Kern River as a result of the proposed action.
On June 18, 2024, the Commission issued a public notice for the proposed amendment. On July 17, 2024, the California State Water Resources Control Board filed a motion to intervene.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the project.
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 to 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
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Zeena Aljibury at 202-502-6065 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public meeting with a webcast of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB). The meeting will be shared in real-time via webcast and public comments may be provided in writing in advance or virtually via webcast. Please see
The meeting will be held on:
1. October 15, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Pacific time; and
2. October 16, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific time.
Any member of the public who wants information about the meeting may contact Tara Johnson via telephone/voicemail at (202) 809-7368 or email to
(1) Discuss potential future EFAB charges;
(2) Provide updates on recent EFAB deliverables; and
(3) Learn more about the Administration's infrastructure investment opportunities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Formaldehyde Standards for Composite
Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0456, 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
Katherine Sleasman, Office of Program Support (7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1204; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Final EIS No. 20230178 filed 12/11/2023 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The DOE was not a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b)(1) of the CEQ regulations.
10 a.m., Thursday, October 10, 2024.
You may observe the open portions of this meeting in person at 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. If you would like to observe, at least 24 hours in advance, visit
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.
The following matters will be considered:
• Approval of Minutes for September 12, 2024.
• Proposed Rule—Annual Independent Audits and Internal Controls over Financial Reporting Requirements.
• Office of Secondary Market Oversight Periodic Report.
If you need more information or assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-4056.
The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Section, 600 North Pearl, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this timeframe.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve. The meeting is open to the public. The public's means to observe this meeting of the Advisory Committee on Community Banking will be both in person and via a Webcast live on the internet. In addition, the meeting will be recorded and subsequently made available on-demand approximately two weeks after the event. To view the live event, visit
Thursday, November 7, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC at (202) 898-8748.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than October 15, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than October 28, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the annual adjustment in the amount in
This annual adjustment takes effect on January 1, 2025.
Liz Hosna, (410) 786-4993.
Section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act) established the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review at $100 and $1,000, respectively, for Medicare Part A and Part B appeals. Additionally, section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act provides that beginning in January 2005, the AIC threshold amounts are to be adjusted annually by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to the July preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Sections 1852(g)(5) and 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act apply the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C/Medicare Advantage (MA) appeals and certain health maintenance organization and competitive health plan appeals. Health care prepayment plans are also subject to MA appeals rules, including the AIC adjustment requirement, pursuant to 42 CFR 417.840. Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act, provides that a Medicare Part D plan sponsor shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 1852(g) of the Act with respect to benefits, including appeals and the application of the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part D appeals.
The statutory formula for the annual adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review of Medicare Part A and Part B appeals, set forth at section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act, is included in the applicable implementing regulations, 42 CFR 405.1006(b) and (c). The regulations at § 405.1006(b)(2) require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to publish changes to the AIC threshold amounts in the
Section 1852(g)(5) of the Act applies the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C appeals. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are found at 42 CFR 422, subpart M. Specifically, sections 422.600 and 422.612 discuss the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Section 422.600 grants any party to the reconsideration (except the MA organization) who is dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing as long as the amount remaining in controversy after reconsideration meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary. Section 422.612 states, in part, that any party, including the MA organization, may request judicial review if the AIC meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary.
Section 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that the annual adjustment to the AIC dollar amounts set forth in section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act applies to certain beneficiary appeals within the context of health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans. The applicable implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are set forth in 42 CFR 422, subpart M and apply to these appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.600(b). The Medicare Part C appeals rules also apply to health care prepayment plan appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.840.
The annually adjusted AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review that apply to Medicare Parts A, B, and C appeals also apply to Medicare Part D appeals. Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act regarding Part D appeals requires a prescription drug plan sponsor to meet the requirements set forth in sections 1852(g)(4) and (g)(5) of the Act, in a similar manner as MA organizations. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part D appeals can be found at 42 CFR 423, subparts M and U. More specifically, § 423.2006 of the Part D appeals rules discusses the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Sections 423.2002 and 423.2006 grant a Part D enrollee who is dissatisfied with the independent review entity (IRE) reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing if the amount remaining in controversy after the IRE reconsideration meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary, and other requirements set forth in § 423.2002. Sections 423.2006 and 423.2136 allow a Part D enrollee to request judicial review of an ALJ or Medicare Appeals Council decision if the AIC meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary, and other requirements are met as set forth in these provisions.
Section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act requires that the AIC threshold amounts be adjusted annually, beginning in January 2005, by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the CPI for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to July of the year preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.
The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings will rise from $180 for CY 2024 to $190 for CY 2025, and the AIC threshold amount for judicial review will increase from $1,840 for CY 2024 to $1,900 for CY 2025. These amounts are based on the 89.529 percent change in the medical care component of the CPI, which was at 297.600 in July 2003 and rose to 564.039 in July 2024. The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings changes to $189.53 based on the 89.529 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $100 established in 2003. In accordance with section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act, the adjusted threshold amounts are rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Therefore, the CY 2025 AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings is $190.00. The AIC threshold amount for judicial review changes to $1,895.21 based on the 89.529 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $1,000. This amount was rounded to the nearest multiple of $10, resulting in the CY 2025 AIC threshold amount of $1,900.00 for judicial review.
In the following table we list the CYs 2021 through 2025 threshold amounts.
This document announces the annual adjustment in the AIC threshold amounts and does not impose any “collection of information” requirements as defined under 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Consequently, the notice is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Evell Barco, who is the
Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is proposing to continue to collect data to understand diaper need and outcomes for beneficiaries of the Diaper Distribution Demonstration and Research Pilot (DDDRP).
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than October 28, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Joella Roland, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
A 60-day notice published in the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than October 28, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Joella Roland, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
The MIECHV Program, authorized by section 511 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 711, and administered by HRSA in partnership with the Administration for Children and Families, supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. States, jurisdictions, tribal entities, and nonprofit organizations, in certain circumstances, are eligible to receive funding through MIECHV and have the flexibility, within the parameters of the authorizing statute, to tailor the program to serve the specific needs of their communities. The statewide needs assessment is a critical and foundational resource that assists awardees in identifying and understanding how to meet the needs of eligible families living in at-risk communities in their states, especially as awardees make decisions about how to expand service delivery in their states with annual increases in MIECHV matching grants.
A 60-day notice was published in the
The second comment discussed concerns regarding the structure of the needs assessment update submission timeline and limitations of the needs assessment criteria for serving specific populations, such as communities experiencing homelessness. HRSA considered this comment; however, no changes will be made to the information collection because instructions have already provided flexibility for awardees to leverage data sources across programs and systems, such as data regarding families' housing status, to provide justification for their selections of additional at-risk communities. Rather than completing a full needs assessment, HRSA is asking awardees for updated information on additional at-risk counties and minimal edits to previously approved statewide needs assessments and anticipates that the information collection can be achieved in a short timeline.
The third comment discussed the benefits of promoting coordination and referrals across early childhood systems and services within states and communities through the inclusion of other statewide needs assessments and additional data sources for identifying at-risk counties. The comment also suggested that HRSA's guidance allow for awardees to cite data from other needs assessment and state-level early childhood grants, such as those funded through the Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five. HRSA considered this comment; however, no changes will be made to the information collection because the 2020 SIR guidance has already provided flexibility for awardees to leverage national, state, or local data sources across programs and systems to provide justification for their selections of additional at-risk communities.
The fourth comment discussed the accuracy of the burden estimate and the usage of automated collection techniques to minimize the information collection burden. HRSA considered this comment; however, no changes will be made to the information collection because the burden estimate reflects that the instructions only require respondents to add additional communities and provide supporting data and narrative for only those additions, rather than completing a full needs assessment that will support an increased burden estimate, and based on similar data collection and grant reporting requirements, this burden estimate reflects and aligns with the experience of awardees.
In response to the 2020 Needs Assessment Update SIR, state and jurisdiction awardees were required to submit an updated statewide needs assessment that identified all the following information, as required by the MIECHV authorizing statute:
(1) Communities with concentrations of (a) premature birth, low-birth weight infants, and infant mortality, including infant death due to neglect, or other indicators of at-risk prenatal, maternal, newborn, or child health; (b) poverty; (c) crime; (d) domestic violence; (e) high rates of high school drop-outs; (f) substance abuse; (g) unemployment; or (h) child maltreatment.
(2) The quality and capacity of existing programs or initiatives for early childhood home visitation in the state including the number and types of
(3) The state's capacity for providing substance abuse treatment and counseling services to individuals and families in need of such treatment or services.
The SIR provided guidance to states in updating their statewide needs assessments and submitting the required information to HRSA. States that elected not to apply or be awarded MIECHV funds were encouraged to work with nonprofit organizations that received awards to provide MIECHV-supported services within the state and determine whether they will submit their needs assessments directly or through the nonprofit organization awardee. HRSA and recipients providing MIECHV services within states used the information collected through the needs assessment update to ensure the continued provision of MIECHV home visiting services in at-risk communities. The information is also used to support program planning, improvement, and decision-making. States wishing to amend their needs assessment will be asked to provide new information and supporting data. HRSA will provide specific instructions on timeline and the amendment process to awardees who request to amend their needs assessment update in advance of their fiscal year 2025 funding application. HRSA is not proposing any changes to the previously approved Needs Assessment SIR.
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 Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group, Macromolecular Structure and Function B Study Section, October 22, 2024, 08:30 a.m. to October 23, 2024, 08:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the start time of the meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Ms. Mikia P. Currie, Program Analyst, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 350, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, or call a non-toll-free number 301-435-0941 or email your request, including your address to
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The Office of the Director, Office of Extramural Research (OER), National Institutes of Health (NIH), may not conduct or sponsor. The respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, NIH has submitted to OMB a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 203,664.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide an opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact Scott Keasey, 428 Miller Drive, Suite 59 9742, Rockville, MD 20880, or call non-toll-free number 301-846-1115 or Email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 77.
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
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning the opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collections of information are 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Section 1926 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) stipulates Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant (SUPTRS) funding agreements for alcohol and drug abuse programs for fiscal year 1994 and subsequent fiscal years require States to have in effect a law stating that it is unlawful for any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of tobacco products to sell or distribute any such product to any individual under the age of 21. This section further requires that States conduct annual, random, unannounced inspections to ensure compliance with the law; that the State submit annually a report describing the results of the inspections, the activities carried out by the State to enforce the required law, the success the State has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to individuals under the age of 21, and the strategies to be utilized by the State for enforcing such law during the fiscal year for which the grant is sought.
Before making an award to a State under the Block Grant, the Secretary must make a determination that the State has maintained compliance with the regulations. If a determination is made that the State is not in compliance, penalties shall be applied. There are three (3) penalty options for failure to comply with the Synar requirements: (1) States may be fined a penalty up to 10 percent of the SUPTRS). (2) States may elect to submit a corrective action plan to the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use within 90 days of receipt of notice that they are not in compliance with the Synar regulations, which outlines strategies they will take to reduce the Retail Violation Rate to 20 percent or less. (3) States certify to the Secretary by May 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, consistent with subparagraph (B), that the State will commit additional State funds, in accordance with paragraph (1), to ensure that retailers do not sell tobacco products to individuals under 21 years of age; (Pub. L. 116-94 Stat., sec. 604 pg. 593). Respondents include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. Red Lake Indian Tribe is not subject to tobacco requirements.
Regulations that implement this legislation are at 45 CFR 96.130, are approved by OMB under control number 0930-0163, and require that each State submit an annual Synar report to the Secretary describing their progress in complying with section 1926 of the PHS Act. The Synar report, due December 31 following the fiscal year for which the state is reporting, describes the results of the inspections and the activities carried out by the State to enforce the required law; the success the State has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to individuals under the age of 21; and the strategies to be utilized by the State for enforcing such law during the fiscal year for which the grant is sought. SAMHSA is requesting an extension of OMB approval of the current report format associated with section 1926 (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) to 2026. Extending OMB approval of the current report format will continue to facilitate consistent, credible, and efficient monitoring of Synar compliance across the States.
Send comments to SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E45, Rockville, Maryland 20857, OR email a copy to
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0011, that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection requires interested volunteers to fill out an application to determine their qualification for participating in the
Send your comments by November 26, 2024.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To screen volunteers for entry into the FFDO program, TSA collects information from applicants, including name, address, prior address information, personal references, criminal history, limited medical information, financial information, and employment information, through comprehensive applications they submit to TSA.
TSA is revising the collection by discontinuing the TSA verbal interview and enabling online submission of answers to certification questions. TSA previously verbally interviewed each applicant who completed the questionnaire to certify their compliance with the FFDO program requirements. In lieu of a verbal interview, TSA has now added these certification questions to the “Certification and Release of Information” section of the questionnaire, allowing all the required information to be completed during the online application process. This revision reduces the burden to the collection by removing the burden time to complete the TSA verbal interview. In addition, the change eliminates duplication of certain questions that had been asked in the TSA verbal interview that were identical to questions asked by the background investigators who later interview applicants.
Based on the average number of new applicants to the FFDO program, TSA estimates a total of 1,700 respondents annually. TSA estimates that the online application will take one hour for each applicant to complete for a total burden of 1,700 hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed extension.
The Department of the Army (Army) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for extension of the withdrawal of public lands for the Army's use for the McGregor Range, located in Otero County, New Mexico. The McGregor Range encompasses 608,385 acres that Congress withdrew from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a 25-year period and reserved for the Army's use. The current withdrawal will expire on November 6, 2026, unless Congress approves the extension. This notice advises the public of an opportunity to comment on the application, attend a public meeting, and review the legislative environmental assessment (EA).
Comments regarding this withdrawal application must be received by December 26, 2024. In addition, the BLM and the Army will host public meetings addressing the withdrawal application.
The BLM and the Army will hold a virtual public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension on November 20, 2024, via Zoom at 6 p.m. (Mountain Time). To register for the meeting, visit
All comments should be sent to State Director, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.
Jillian Aragon, Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, telephone: 505-564-7722 or email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States
Section 3011(d) of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act (MLWA) of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-65) withdrew approximately 608,385 acres of public land for the McGregor Range from all forms of appropriation under public land laws and reserved them for use by the Army. The withdrawal will expire on November 6, 2026, unless extended by Congress. The Army has filed an application for extension of the current withdrawal for 25 years. Extension of the withdrawal is warranted by the purpose of the withdrawal established by Congress: to allow for continued military use of the McGregor Range, which is used to train military personnel and test equipment to meet nationally directed missions and requirements.
The public land withdrawn under Public Law 106-65 encompasses approximately 608,385 acres in Otero County, New Mexico. As noted in a previous
The Engle Act (Pub. L. 85-337, 43 U.S.C. 155-157) requires withdrawals for defense purposes of more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate for any one defense project or facility to be authorized by an Act of Congress. Section 3016 of the MLWA requires the Army to notify the Secretary of the Interior and Congress whether there is a continuing military need for the withdrawn land. The Army and the Department of the Interior (DOI) intend to submit a legislative proposal for extension of the withdrawal and reservation to Congress not later than May 1, 2025.
As required by section 204(b)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(b)(1), and BLM regulations at 43 CFR part 2300, the BLM is publishing notice of the Army's application. While the BLM and the DOI assist the Army with the processing of withdrawal applications, and the Secretary of the Interior makes a recommendation to Congress on applications for withdrawals of this size for defense purposes, Congress will decide whether to extend the existing withdrawal for the McGregor Range.
The Army is preparing a legislative EA in support of the legislative proposal and is conducting public scoping under NEPA. The Army will host a joint virtual public scoping meeting and will accept comments on potential alternatives, potential environment impacts, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed action. The BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the legislative EA. Information on the environmental review process can be viewed using the link in the
For a period until December 26, 2024, all persons who wish to submit comments in connection with the withdrawal application and the legislative EA may present their comments in writing to the address listed in the
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.
The withdrawal extension application will be processed in accordance with MLWA, and to the extent consistent with MWLA, the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 15, 2024, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Balanced Body, Inc. of Sacramento, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on September 6, 2024. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain exercise equipment and subassemblies thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,721,511 (“the '511 patent”); U.S. Patent No. D659,205 (“the D'205 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. D659,208 (“the D'208 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “exercise equipment known as Pilates reformers”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Balanced Body, Inc., 5909 88th St., Sacramento, CA 95828.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 22, 2024, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Maxell, Ltd. of Japan. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 10, 2024. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain smart televisions by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,109 (“the '109 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,451,860 (“the '860 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,924,502 (“the '502 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,958,971 (“the '971 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claim 4 of the '109 patent; claims 7-11 of the '860 patent; claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 22 of the '502 patent; and claim 1 of the '971 patent, and whether an
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “televisions with smart features and functionality”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a)
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On August 30, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., of Chicago, Illinois (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. AW2016651, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Illinois, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective February 21, 2023, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation suspended
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, a practitioner in good faith (“the regular course of professional treatment”) may dispense a controlled substance. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/312(a), 570/102(u) (2024).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Illinois. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Illinois, and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Illinois, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. AW2016651 issued to Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., for additional registration in Illinois. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 19, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On May 7, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Wagner Gervais, P.A., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. MG7845778, alleging that Respondent's DEA registration should be revoked because Respondent is “without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Arizona, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
On May 21, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer. On June 4, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, to which Respondent did not respond.
Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of the ALJ's rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction as found in the RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
On November 29, 2023, the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants revoked Respondent's Arizona physician assistant license. RD, at 3.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Arizona statute, “[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, prescribes or uses for scientific purposes any controlled substance within th[e] state or who proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution, prescribing or dispensing of or using for scientific purposes any controlled substance within th[e] state must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a current license or permit as a medical practitioner as defined in § 32-1901 . . . .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 36-2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32-1901 defines a “[m]edical practitioner” as “any medical doctor . . . or other person who is licensed and authorized by law to use and prescribe drugs and devices to treat sick and injured human beings or animals or to diagnose or prevent sickness in human beings or animals in [Arizona] or any state, territory or district of the United States.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona. As discussed above, only a licensed medical practitioner can dispense controlled substances in Arizona. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona, and therefore is not a licensed medical practitioner, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MG7845778 issued to Wagner Gervais, P.A. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Wagner Gervais, P.A., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Wagner Gervais, P.A., for additional registration in Arizona. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 16, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On July 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant's Pennsylvania dental license expired on March 31, 2023. RFAAX 3, at 2. According to Pennsylvania online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's dental license remains expired.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Pennsylvania statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance, other drug or device to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare such item for that delivery.” 35 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-102(b) (West 2024). Further, a “practitioner” means “a physician . . . dentist . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or to administer a controlled substance, other drug or device in the course of professional practice or research in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Pennsylvania. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registrations be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificates of Registration Nos. FR0070538, FR7760728, and FR7760730 issued to Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., for additional registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 20, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register
On February 23, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Adam L. Larson, M.D., of Draper, Utah (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. FL0432815, alleging that Respondent is “without authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer. On March 15, 2024, the Government filed a Submission of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition. On April 9, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent's registration, finding that because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which he is registered with DEA, “there is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide.” Order Granting the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 6. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD.
Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of the ALJ's rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction as found in the RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
On January 3, 2024, Respondent surrendered his Utah medical license and Utah controlled substance license. RD, at 3;
Respondent also argues that despite lacking authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, he has authority to handle controlled substances elsewhere, referencing a different DEA Certificate of Registration with a Texas address. Respondent's Answer, at 1. Because Respondent's DEA registration at issue is based on his Utah licenses, which have undeniably been surrendered, it is of no consequence that he may maintain valid authority and a separate DEA registration elsewhere.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Utah statute, “[e]very person who manufactures, produces, distributes, prescribes, dispenses, administers, conducts research with, or performs laboratory analysis upon any controlled substance in Schedules I through V within [the] state . . . shall obtain a license issued by the [Division of Professional Licensing].” Utah Code Ann. section 58-37-6(2)(a)(i) (2024).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah because he surrendered both his Utah medical license and his Utah controlled substance license. As discussed above, an individual must hold a controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance in Utah. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Utah. RD, at 5-6. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent's DEA registration in Utah be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FL0432815 issued to Adam L. Larson, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 17, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On June 29, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Michael Fletcher, M.D., of Cincinnati, OH (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FF0291005, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.” RFAAX 1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective May 11, 2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio issued an order prohibiting Registrant from prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise professionally utilizing controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Ohio statute, “[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog,” except pursuant to a “prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sections 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a “[l]icensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs” or “prescriber” means “an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the individual's professional practice.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that although Registrant is currently authorized to practice medicine in Ohio, Registrant is not authorized to handle controlled substances in accordance with his practice of medicine. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Ohio, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FF0291005 issued to Michael Fletcher, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Michael Fletcher, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Michael Fletcher, M.D., for additional registration in Ohio. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 20, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On January 18, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Charles Sangmoah, P.A., of Huntington Park, CA (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MS2342842, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective May 31, 2023, Registrant surrendered his California physician assistant license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's California physician assistant license remains surrendered.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to California statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a “practitioner” means a person “licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] state.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in California. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MS2342842 issued to Charles Sangmoah, P.A. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Charles Sangmoah, P.A., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Charles Sangmoah, P.A., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 20, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Department of Justice (DOJ) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until October 28, 2024.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Sean E. Goodison (email:
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Advisory Committee.
Tuesday, October 22, 2024, 10 a.m.-5 p.m., Wednesday, October 23, 2024, 9:30 a.m.-5 p.m., and Thursday, October 24, 2024, 9:30 a.m.-12 p.m. All times are eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in and Webinar information below under
Dr. Janet Kozyra, Designated Federal Officer, Heliophysics Advisory Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, via email at
As noted above, this meeting will be open to the public via Webinar and telephonically. Webinar connectivity information is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webinar event, you may use your computer or provide your phone number to receive a call back, otherwise, call the U.S. toll conference number listed.
On Tuesday October 22, 2024, the event address for attendees is:
The webinar number is 2831 489 9839 and the webinar password is KwprFaXc934. If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is 1-415-527-5035 or 1-312-500-3163 and access code is 283 148 99839 and password is 59773292.
On Wednesday October 23, 2024, the event address for attendees is:
The webinar number is 2818 795 0282 and the webinar password is (iAkGQAvp762). If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is 1-415-527-5035 or 1-312-500-3163 and access code is 281 879 50282 and password is 42547287.
On Thursday October 24, 2024, the event address for attendees is:
The webinar number is (2819 521 4155) and the webinar password is (JGrAjPiW892). If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is (1-415-527-5035) or (1-312-500-3163) and access code is (281 952 14155) and password is (54725749).
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that these meeting be held on these days to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
For more information, please visit the committee website link at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by October 28, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is committed to effectively performing the Agency's communication function in accordance with the Space Act Section 203(a)(3) to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results there of,” and to enhance public understanding of, and participation in, the nation's space program in accordance with the NASA Strategic Plan. The Space Act of 1958, directs the Agency to expand human knowledge of Earth and space phenomena. Organizing outreach events is one way NASA intends to leverage excitement about the nation's space program and expand human knowledge of Earth and space phenomena. In order to organize effective outreach events and registration opportunities for members of the public, it is necessary to collect information from perspective guests and those that will check-in the guests at events. The NASA Special Events System is a tool to allow invitees to register for and check-in to NASA event opportunities (launch viewing, agency engagements, etc.) in a single location.
The NASA Special Events tool is a web-based application on a Salesforce platform that enables the NASA OCOMM team to manage guest information, communication, and reporting agency-wide. The intent of using electronic collection techniques is to increase the accuracy of information gathered and to streamline the process for guests and workforce alike.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final guidance; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing the Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs (DUWP), Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), DUWP-ISG-02, “Radiological Survey and Dose Modeling of the Subsurface to Support License Termination.” The purpose of this ISG is to provide guidance on surveys of open surfaces in the subsurface, including open excavations, materials planned for reuse, and substructures. This ISG also provides guidance on the use of commonly used decommissioning dose modeling codes for submerged and partially submerged substructures to develop clean-up levels, and on methods to evaluate risk from existing groundwater contamination. This ISG supplements guidance found in NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2, which pertains to licensees subject to the license termination rule found in NRC regulations. This ISG is intended for use by applicants, licensees, and NRC staff. The guidance is also available to Agreement States and the public.
This guidance is effective on October 28, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0145 when contacting the
•
•
•
Cynthia Barr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4015; email:
The NRC is issuing this ISG to supplement guidance provided in NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria,” which was issued in July 2022 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22194A859). The ISG provides additional guidance developed after Revision 2 to NUREG-1757, Volume 2, was published related to surveys of open surfaces in the subsurface, including open excavations, materials planned for reuse, and substructures. The ISG also provides guidance on the use of commonly used decommissioning dose modeling codes to develop clean-up levels for submerged and partially submerged substructures, and on methods to evaluate risk from existing groundwater contamination. NRC staff held two subsurface investigations workshops on July 14-15, 2021, and May 11, 2022, to help support the development of this ISG, and contracted with Oak Ridge Associated Universities to develop guidance on acceptable survey methods.
On October 19, 2023, the NRC issued a
Issuance of this ISG will not (i) constitute backfitting as defined in sections 50.109, 70.76, or 72.62 of title 10 of the
This ISG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of September 30, October 7, 14, 21, 28, and November 4, 2024. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 30, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 14, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 21, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 4, 2024.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, 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. MC2024-719 and K2024-12;
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change is to (1) amend the DTC Settlement Service Guide (“Settlement Guide)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to (1) amend the Settlement Guide to retire the ID Net, a joint service offering of DTC and NSCC and, consequently, (2) remove from the Fee Guide the ID Net Fee associated with ID Net.
DTC may accept affirmed institutional transactions (“Affirmed Transactions”)
In order for an Affirmed Transaction to be eligible for processing in ID Net, (i) both counterparties to the Affirmed Transaction must be a Member of NSCC and a Participant of DTC, or a bank that is a Participant of DTC, that has subscribed to ID Net; and (ii) the transaction must be (a) in a security eligible for processing through NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”)
If an Affirmed Transaction is designated for ID Net by the Matching Utility and meets the eligibility criteria described above, then DTC will direct the transaction to ID Net, which facilitates the netting of a broker/dealer's side of an Affirmed Transaction with that broker/dealer's CNS activity via omnibus accounts that are maintained by NSCC at DTC and designated for ID Net activity. If a bank is a counterparty to the ID Net-eligible Affirmed Transaction, then it will either receive or deliver the subject shares versus payment, on a trade-for-trade basis, via the ID Net omnibus accounts.
While ID Net was designed to allow broker/dealers to realize the benefit of netting for Affirmed Transactions by allowing the broker/dealer to net its ID Net-eligible Affirmed Transactions with its transactions in CNS, banks using ID Net settle ID Net transactions on a trade-for-trade basis as they would for other Affirmed Transactions, as described above. In this regard, ID Net's main benefit is to streamline clearance and settlement of ID Net-eligible Affirmed Transactions for broker/dealers.
NSCC and DTC continually evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the services they each provide. As part of these evaluations, and in furtherance of their ongoing modernization efforts, both DTC and NSCC are seeking to streamline and simplify their services and processes, including through the elimination of underutilized services. DTC and NSCC have identified ID Net as an underused service that may be eliminated as part of their modernization efforts. They each propose to retire ID Net due to (i) limited uptake and usage of the service since its adoption
DTC believes that the retirement of ID Net would have minimal impact on its Participants because (1) only 13 broker/dealers and 20 banks subscribe to ID Net, with not all of them even using the service, and (2) Affirmed Transactions can simply settle trade-for-trade, directly between the counterparties, if not eligible for ID Net, like they do today.
To implement the proposed change, DTC would remove all provisions relating to ID Net from the Settlement Guide, including (i) the entire text of the section titled “ID Net,” which contains the DTC Procedures for processing of ID Net transactions,
DTC has performed direct outreach to Participants that use ID Net and has also announced its plans to decommission ID Net through Important Notice. There have been no material objections or concerns raised by Participants.
In addition, DTC would delete the associated ID Net Fee of 2 cents per transaction from the Fee Guide
Subject to approval by the Commission, DTC and NSCC would implement the proposed rule change using a phased approach. First, DTC Participants and NSCC Members have been informed that they may be unsubscribed from ID Net voluntarily at any time prior to termination of the service on November 15, 2024. Second, upon approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission prior to November 15, 2024, any DTC Participants and NSCC Members that have been inactive in the service for at least the last twelve (12) months will be offboarded from the service. Finally, NSCC and DTC will continue to fully support ID Net processing for any remaining active users until November 15, 2024, at which time the service will be fully retired. NSCC and DTC will work with their respective Members and Participants to support all required offboarding activities.
DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The proposed rule change would amend the Settlement Guide to decommission ID Net, and remove the ID Net Fee from the Fee Guide, because the service is hardly used yet challenging to maintain. As discussed above, DTC believes that the retirement of ID Net would have minimal impact on its Participants given the limited usage of the service. Furthermore, Affirmed Transactions that would have otherwise been directed to ID Net can simply settle trade-for-trade, directly between the counterparties, like most other Affirmed Transactions do today. As a result, these Affirmed Transactions would continue to settle promptly and accurately, as other Affirmed Transactions do, outside of ID Net. For these reasons, DTC believes its Rules would continue to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
DTC does not believe the proposed rule change to decommission ID Net would present a burden on competition. While the few broker/dealer Participants
Furthermore, DTC does not believe the removal of the ID Net Fee, which would become obsolete with the decommissioning ID Net, would impose a burden on competition. Upon the decommissioning of ID Net, Affirmed Transactions that were previously processed via ID Net will now be subject to the existing standard charge for Affirmed Transactions of 4 cents
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received by DTC, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
DTC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend Section 2)e), Member and Non-Member Technical Support Request Fee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange
The Exchange established the technical support request fee at the current hourly rate of $200 per hour in 2020.
Technical support refers to the use of Exchange engineers to perform on-site technical support tasks in the data centers for Equity Members and non-Members, including the following support-related tasks: (1) power cycling of equipment; (2) patching and plugging in cabling and circuits; (3) observing, describing or reporting on display indicators; (4) configuration of hardware components instructed by the customer; (5) diagnosis and repairs as instructed by the customer; (6) swapping hardware components with Exchange-supplied or customer-supplied spares or upgrades; (7) troubleshooting heat related issues as instructed by customers; and (8) returning defective equipment to the manufacturer or customer.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 2)e), Member and Non-Member Technical Support Request Fee, to now include in the fee to be assessed to Equity Members and non-Members that request technical support the cost of materials necessary for the Exchange to complete such technical support in any of the Exchange's data centers. Some examples of materials for such technical support may include, but are not limited to, fiber optic cables, fiber spool, optical connectors (a device used to connect fiber optic cables), and patch cables.
The Exchange does not propose to assess any amount in excess of the cost of any materials that are necessary for the Exchange's on-site engineers to complete the requested technical support. The Exchange simply proposes to pass through the costs of the materials, if necessary, to complete such technical support. At least one competing exchange group similarly passes through the cost of materials to their customers when performing similar types of services in their data centers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to include in the cost of the technical support request fee the cost of any materials that are necessary for the Exchange's on-site engineers to complete the requested technical support because the Exchange will only pass through the actual costs it is charged by external vendors of such materials. The Exchange will not pass through any amount in excess of the cost of any materials that are necessary for the Exchange's on-site engineers to complete the requested technical support.
The Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will pass through the costs of materials for requested technical support in an equal manner to all Equity Members and non-Members that request technical support in the data centers that requires the Exchange to purchase materials to complete such request. The cost for materials provided by the Exchange's external vendors supplying the materials will be passed through directly to the Equity Member or non-Member requesting technical support.
Furthermore, Equity Members and non-Members are not required to use the technical support service. The Exchange offers this service as a convenience to all Equity Members and non-Members. The Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable because it will permit both Equity Members and non-Members to request the use of the Exchange's on-site data center personnel as technical support and as a convenience in order to test or otherwise assess the user's connectivity to the Exchange via its data centers, while paying for the cost of any materials the Exchange is required to purchase to complete such requests.
Additionally, at least one competing options exchange group passes through the cost of materials to their customers when performing similar types of services in their data centers.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposal to pass through the cost of any materials that are necessary for the Exchange's on-site engineers to complete the requested technical support will not result in any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange will only pass-through the actual costs it is charged by third-party external vendors for such materials. At least one competing options exchange group similarly passes along charges assessed to those exchanges by third-party external vendors supplying materials on behalf of that exchange group's customers.
Additionally, the pass through of costs for materials will be assessed equally to all Equity Members and non-Members who request technical support that requires the Exchange to purchase materials to complete the requested support. The Exchange notes that Equity Members and non-Members are not required to use the service. The Exchange offers this service as a convenience to all Equity Members and non-Members. The Exchange believes the proposal will not impose any burden on intra-market competition because it will permit both Equity Members and non-Members to request the use of the Exchange's on-site data center personnel as technical support and as a convenience in order to test or otherwise assess the user's connectivity to the Exchange via its data centers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will not result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, market participants are not forced to connect to and trade on all exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposed pass-through of costs for materials for technical support will not cause any burden on inter-market competition because none of these changes impact other exchanges' ability to compete.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) to decommission the ID Net service (“ID Net Service” or
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the NSCC Rules to permit NSCC to decommission the ID Net Service, a joint service of NSCC and its affiliate, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). The proposed rule change is discussed in detail below.
The ID Net Service is a joint service offering of NSCC and DTC that allows broker/dealer users to net their affirmed institutional equity trades with other trades that they may have in NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement system (“CNS”).
DTC may accept affirmed institutional transactions
In order for an Affirmed Transaction to be eligible for processing in ID Net, (i) both counterparties to the Affirmed Transaction must be a Member of NSCC and a Participant of DTC, or a bank that is a Participant of DTC, that has subscribed to ID Net and (ii) the transaction must be (a) in a security eligible for processing through CNS and (b) affirmed within established timeframes set forth in the DTC Settlement Service Guide.
If an Affirmed Transaction is designated for ID Net and meets the eligibility criteria described above, then DTC will direct the transaction to ID Net, which facilitates the netting of a broker/dealer's side of an Affirmed Transaction with that broker/dealer's CNS activity, via omnibus accounts, that are maintained by NSCC at DTC and designated for ID Net activity. If a bank is a counterparty to the ID Net-eligible Affirmed Transaction, then it will either receive or deliver the subject shares versus payment, on a trade-for-trade basis, via the ID Net omnibus accounts.
While ID Net was designed to allow broker/dealers to realize the benefit of netting for Affirmed Transactions by allowing the broker/dealer to net its ID Net-eligible Affirmed Transactions with its transactions in CNS, banks using ID Net settle ID Net transactions on a trade-for-trade basis as they would for other Affirmed Transactions, as described above. In this regard, ID Net's main benefit is to streamline clearance and settlement of ID Net-eligible Affirmed Transactions for broker/dealers.
The ID Net Service is primarily described in NSCC Rule 65 and Procedure XVI of the Rules.
NSCC and DTC continually evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the services they each provide. As part of these evaluations, and in furtherance of their ongoing modernization efforts, NSCC and DTC are seeking to streamline and simplify their services and processes, including through the elimination of underutilized services. NSCC and DTC have identified ID Net as an underused service that may be eliminated as part of these modernization efforts. They each propose to retire the ID Net Service due to a number of factors, which include: (i) limited uptake and usage of the service since its adoption; (ii) the operational complexity of maintaining the service, which also connects with and impacts other core clearance and settlement processes;
To implement the proposed change, NSCC would remove Rule 65 and Procedure XVI from the Rules and make other conforming changes throughout the Rules to reflect the retirement of the service. The ID Net Service is primarily described in NSCC Rule 65 and Procedure XVI, and these rules would no longer be necessary or relevant upon the retirement of the ID Net Service. As a result, Rule 65 and Procedure XVI would be deleted in their entirety and would be reserved for future use by NSCC.
NSCC would also remove associated defined terms “Eligible ID Net Security” and “ID Net Subscriber” from Rule 1 and remove a reference to ID Net transactions from the definition of “Net Unsettled Position” in Rule 1. In addition, NSCC would remove Section 1(f) of Rule 3, concerning certain lists required to be maintained by NSCC, to reflect that NSCC would no longer be required to maintain a list of Eligible ID Net Securities and would make a conforming change to renumber existing Section 1(g) of Rule 3 to Section 1(f). NSCC would also remove Section 2(a)(vii) of Rule 18, which concerns procedures for when NSCC ceases to act for a Member, to reflect that uncompleted ID Net Service transactions would no longer be considered for purposes of determining excluded transactions in a cease to act scenario.
Additionally, NSCC would modify Procedure VII, concerning its CNS Accounting Operation, to remove various references to the ID Net Service and ID Net transactions. Specifically, NSCC would revise the Introduction in Section A to remove a reference to Eligible ID Net Securities being included in CNS Securities for purpose of Procedure VII. NSCC would also modify Section D.1., concerning the process for exemptions from deliveries, to remove a statement regarding the treatment of securities available in an agency account established at a Qualified Securities Depository for the processing of transactions through the ID Net Service. In addition, NSCC would modify Section E.4, concerning the allocation algorithm for CNS deliveries, to remove a statement regarding the treatment of long positions in a receiving ID Net Subscriber's agency account established at a Qualified Securities Depository. NSCC would also delete Section H.5. of Procedure VII concerning the reporting of ID Net transactions on NSCC's Miscellaneous Activity Report and make conforming changes to renumber subsequent rules in Section H.
Finally, NSCC would update Section I.(A)(1)(b) of Procedure XV, concerning NSCC's Clearing Fund calculations, to remove a reference to ID Net transactions from the Mark-to-Market component of the Clearing Fund formula.
NSCC believes that the retirement of the ID Net Service would have minimal impact on its Members. Only 13 broker/dealers and 20 banks are subscribed to the ID Net Service, and the service is not used by all of those broker/dealers and banks.
NSCC has performed direct outreach to Members that use the ID Net Service and has also announced its plans to decommission the ID Net Service through Important Notice. There have been no material objections or concerns raised by Members.
Subject to approval by the Commission, DTC and NSCC would implement the proposed rule change using a phased approach. First, DTC Participants and NSCC Members have been informed that they may be unsubscribed from ID Net voluntarily at any time prior to termination of the service on November 15, 2024. Second, upon approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission prior to November 15, 2024, any DTC Participants and NSCC Members that have been inactive in the service for at least the last twelve (12) months will be offboarded from the service. Finally, NSCC and DTC will continue to fully support ID Net processing for any remaining active users until November 15, 2024, at which time the service will be fully retired. NSCC and DTC will work with their respective Members and Participants to support all required offboarding activities.
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The proposed rule change would modify the NSCC Rules to decommission the ID Net Service because the service is hardly used yet challenging to maintain. As discussed above, NSCC believes that the retirement of the ID Net Service would have minimal impact on its Members, particularly given the limited usage of the service. Furthermore, Affirmed Transactions that would have otherwise been directed to ID Net can simply settle trade-for-trade, directly between the counterparties, like most other Affirmed Transactions do today. As a result, these transactions would continue to settle promptly and accurately, as other Affirmed Transactions do, outside of the ID Net Service. For these reasons, NSCC believes its Rules would continue to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4817-DR), dated September 16, 2024.
Issued on September 23, 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 Louisiana, dated September 16, 2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the Optional Peg Rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted
Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any Third Party Lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4817-DR), dated September 23, 2024.
Issued on September 23, 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.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 23, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 206668 and for economic injury is 206670.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes a request for a new information collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 26, 2024. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1.
SSA is requesting clearance to collect data necessary to evaluate the Developing Opportunities for ABLE Owners (DO-ABLE) under the Interventional Cooperative Agreement Program (ICAP). On May 6, 2021, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced a new funding opportunity, the Interventional Cooperative Agreement Program (ICAP), in the
DO-ABLE intends to promote take-up and use of ABLE accounts among Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients in Illinois and Wisconsin through a three-phased randomized controlled trial (RCT). ABLE accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts, which offer people with disabilities the opportunity to accumulate assets and use funds for a broad range of expenses without threatening SSI benefits eligibility. Up to $100,000 saved in an ABLE account is exempt from the SSI resource limit.
The DO-ABLE evaluation uses a three-phased randomized controlled trial (RCT) to promote take-up and use of ABLE accounts. We designed each of the three phases of the proposed RCT to address and engage with a key barrier identified through our previous research as preventing uptake of ABLE accounts: (1) limited knowledge of the program; (2) administrative burden associated with opening and using the accounts; (3) limited resources to save. To collect this information, we will first send letters to approximately 85,000 of the roughly 100,000 eligible SSI recipients in Illinois and Wisconsin. Eligible SSI recipients are those actively receiving SSI payments who are ages 18 to 59 who first received SSI before age 26. This outreach will be Phase 1 of the intervention. In addition to providing information encouraging people to sign up for an ABLE account, these letters will invite people to participate in an intake survey. For people who agree to participate, we will collect three different types of data:
•
○
○
○
○
•
•
SSA is partnering with the University of Chicago's IEL and the Illinois State Treasurer's Office (ILSTO) to implement and evaluate DO-ABLE. The evaluation will provide empirical evidence on (1) the barriers that currently prevent people from opening ABLE accounts; and (2) the impacts of opening and saving money in an ABLE account. We are primarily interested in impacts on financial security, self-sufficiency, and, ultimately, employment. The respondents are current SSI recipients (or their guardians) who are ages 18 to 59 who first received SSI before age 26, and who are thus eligible to open an ABLE account.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice tentatively approving and authorizing finance transaction.
Van Pool Transportation LLC (Van Pool or Applicant), a noncarrier, filed an application to acquire control of an interstate passenger motor carrier, TransAction Corporate Shuttles, Inc. (TCS), from its sole shareholder, the Cynthia Cain Frené Revocable Trust (Seller). The Board is tentatively approving and authorizing the transaction subject to the owners of Van Pool filing to join the application. If the owners' filing is satisfactory and no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action.
Van Pool's owners' filing to join the application is due by October 11, 2024. Comments must be filed by November 8, 2024. If any comments are filed, Van Pool may file a reply by November 26, 2024. If no opposing comments are filed by November 8, 2024, this notice shall be effective on November 9, 2024.
Comments may be filed with the Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of comments to Van Pool's representative: Kiefer A. Light, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., 10 W Market Street, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Sarah Fancher at (202) 740-5507. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
According to the application,
• NRT Bus, Inc., which primarily provides non-regulated student transportation services for schools in Massachusetts (Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester counties), and occasional charter services;
• Trombly Motor Coach Service, Inc., which primarily provides non-regulated student transportation services for schools in Massachusetts (Essex and Middlesex counties), and occasional charter services;
• Salter Transportation, Inc., which primarily provides non-regulated student transportation services for schools in Massachusetts (Essex County) and southern New Hampshire, and occasional charter services;
• Easton Coach Company, LLC, which provides (i) intrastate paratransit, shuttle, and line-run services under contracts with regional transportation authorities and other organizations, primarily in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, and (ii) private charter motor coach and shuttle services (interstate and intrastate), primarily in eastern Pennsylvania;
• F. M. Kuzmeskus, Inc., d/b/a Travel Kuz, which provides (i) non-regulated school bus transportation services, (ii) intrastate and interstate motor coach and limousine charter services, and (iii) limited intrastate and interstate charter services, all in western Massachusetts and southern Vermont;
• Alltown Bus Service Inc., which primarily provides non-regulated student transportation services for schools in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Ill., and its northern suburbs, and occasional charter services;
• DS Bus Lines, Inc., which primarily provides (i) non-regulated student transportation services for schools in Kansas (Beloit, Kansas City, Lincoln, Olathe, and Shawnee), Missouri (Belton and Smithville), Colorado (the metropolitan area of Denver), and Oklahoma (the metropolitan area of Tulsa), (ii) intrastate employee shuttle services in Colorado and Texas, and (iii) occasional charter services;
• Royal Coach Lines, Inc., which primarily provides (i) non-regulated student transportation services for schools in the metropolitan area of Westchester County, N.Y., and southern Connecticut, and (ii) contract and charter transportation services;
• PLSIII LLC, which primarily provides (1) disabled transportation services under contracts with private nonprofit organizations for fixed route and shuttle services in New York (Buffalo, western New York, Rochester, Utica and surrounding areas, and Poughkeepsie and surrounding areas), and (ii) very limited group day trip charter transportation services; and
• Local Motion, LLC, d/b/a Local Motion of Boston, which provides non-regulated school bus, charter, and shuttle services in the metropolitan area of Boston.
According to the application, Van Pool also has operating subsidiaries that provide transportation services that do not involve regulated interstate transportation or require interstate passenger authority, primarily in the northeastern and central portions of the United States. (Appl. 2.) Van Pool states that it is indirectly owned and controlled by investment funds affiliated with Audax Management Company, LLC, (Audax Management), a Delaware limited liability company.
The application explains that TCS, the carrier being acquired, operates as a motor carrier primarily providing fixed-route commuter and municipal shuttle bus services and on-demand transportation for employees of businesses and communities in Massachusetts. (
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction that it finds consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least (1) the effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public, (2) the total fixed charges that result from the proposed transaction, and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees. Van Pool has submitted the information required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including information to demonstrate that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b),
Van Pool asserts that the proposed transaction will not have a material, detrimental impact on the adequacy of transportation services available for the public. (
Van Pool states that the impact of the transaction on the regulated motor carrier industry will be minimal at most and that neither competition nor the public interest will be adversely affected. (
Van Pool asserts that the proposed transaction will increase fixed charges in the form of interest expenses because funds will be borrowed to assist in financing the transaction; however, Van Pool states that the increase will not impact the provision of transportation services to the public. (
The Board notes that the Owners have not joined in Van Pool's application despite their ability to exercise control over Van Pool. 49 U.S.C. 13102(5);
Based on Van Pool's representations, the Board finds that the acquisition as proposed in the application is consistent with the public interest. The application will be tentatively approved and authorized, subject to the Owners submitting a satisfactory filing, as described above, that is consistent with the Board's public interest finding by October 11, 2024. If any opposing comments are timely filed, these findings will be deemed vacated, and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available at
1. The proposed transaction is approved and authorized, subject to the Owners submitting a satisfactory filing to join the application by October 11, 2024, and the filing of opposing comments.
2. If opposing comments are timely filed, the findings made in this notice will be deemed vacated.
3. This notice will be effective on November 9, 2024, unless the Board finds the Owners' submission unsatisfactory or opposing comments are filed by November 8, 2024. If any comments are filed, Van Pool may file a reply by November 26, 2024.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Decided: September 23, 2024.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
Oklahoma & Kansas Railroad, LLC (OKRL), a noncarrier, has filed a verified
According to the verified notice, the transaction involves OKRL's proposed lease of, and commencement of common carrier service over, the Line. OKRL further states that once the proposed lease transaction is effectuated, OKRL will assume a common carrier status over the Line in place of BNGR.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
OKRL certifies that the agreement governing the transaction does not include any provision that may limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier. OKRL also certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in its becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and that its projected annual revenue will not exceed $5 million.
Under 49 CFR 1150.32(b), a change in operator requires that notice be given to shippers. OKRL certifies that it has provided a copy of its verified notice of exemption to all customers on the Line in accordance with the Board's change of operator rules.
The transaction may be consummated on or after October 13, 2024, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
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 October 4, 2024 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36811, 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 OKRL's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to OKRL, 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.
Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railroad LLC (Rock Island), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Oklahoma & Kansas Railroad, LLC (OKRL), upon OKRL's becoming a Class III rail carrier. Rock Island currently controls the Gulf & Ship Island Railroad LLC (G&SI) and Ottawa Northern Railroad LLC (ONR), both Class III rail carriers. Rock Island operates in Mississippi; G&SI operates in Mississippi; ONR operates in Kansas; and OKRL intends to operate in Oklahoma and Kansas.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
Rock Island represents that: (1) none of Rock Island's railroad lines, G&SI's lines, or ONR's lines will connect with OKRL's; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would result in such interconnection; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
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. Accordingly, because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is October 13, 2024, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). 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(g) 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 by October 4, 2024 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36812, 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 Rock Island's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice; cancellation of public hearing.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) sought public comments to assist USTR in the preparation of its annual report to Congress on Russia's compliance with its obligations as a Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Because USTR received no requests to testify, USTR is canceling the public hearing that was scheduled to take place on October 10, 2024.
The public hearing scheduled for October 10, 2024 is cancelled.
Silvia Savich, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Russia and Eurasia at
On August 5, 2024, the TPSC sought public comments to assist USTR in the preparation of its annual report to Congress on Russia's compliance with its obligations as a Member of the WTO.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by November 26, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0066 by any of the following methods:
Melissa Corder, 202-366-5853, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), on behalf of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by the Authority that are final agency actions. The actions relate to the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Palmdale to Burbank Project Section (Project). The Project will provide the public with electric-powered HSR service that provides predictable and consistent travel times between the Antelope Valley and the San Fernando Valley; provide connectivity to airports, mass transit systems, and the highway network in the Antelope Valley and the San Fernando Valley; and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the planned statewide HSR system. These actions grant permits, approvals, or authorizations for the Project.
By this notice, FRA, on behalf of the Authority, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For the Authority: Stefan Galvez-Abadia, Director of Environmental Services, California High Speed Rail Authority, telephone: (916) 908-1184; email:
Effective July 23, 2019, and as subsequently renewed on July 22, 2024, FRA assigned, and the State of California, acting through the Authority, assumed environmental responsibilities for the Project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Authority has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all decisions on the Project as of the issuance date of this notice and all Federal laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
The purpose of the California HSR System is to provide a reliable, high-speed, electric-powered train system that links the major metropolitan areas of California, delivering predictable and consistent travel times. A further objective is to provide an interface with commercial airports, mass transit, and the highway network, and to relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation system as increases in intercity travel demand in California occur, in a manner sensitive to and protective of California's unique natural resources.
For the Project, the Authority has selected the SR14A Alternative. The selected alternative consists of approximately 38 miles of electrified, high-speed train system that will be constructed from Spruce Court in the City of Palmdale and extending south to Winona Avenue in the City of Burbank. The Project will connect the approved Bakersfield to Palmdale and Burbank to Los Angeles Project Sections. The selected alternative and the laws under which the Authority's actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), published on May 24, 2024, and in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Project, executed on August 30, 2024. The Final EIR/EIS, ROD, and other documents are available by contacting the Authority at the addresses provided above or via the web at
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability of final circular and response to comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing an updated Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program Guidance (Section 5310) Circular (C. 9070.1H). The updated circular incorporates changes in the law since the previous circular update and does not include any changes in policy.
The applicable date of this circular is November 1, 2024.
For circular questions, Destiny Buchanan, Section 5310 Program Manager, Office of Transit Programs, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 phone, (202) 493-8018 or email,
FTA is updating its Circular C 9070, last revised in 2014, to incorporate changes in the law since the previous revision and reformat for consistency with other FTA program and award management circulars. This circular provides guidance to recipients of funds under the Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, often referred to as the Section 5310 program. This notice provides a summary of changes to Circular 9070, and this update (C 9070.1H) will supersede the previous version (C 9070.1G).
Since 2014, Congress has made only one substantive statutory change to 49 U.S.C. 5310. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94) made States and local governmental entities that operate public transportation service eligible direct recipients. FTA communicated this change at the time of implementation in 2015, and the updated circular now incorporates this change. FTA has incorporated other cross-cutting changes to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 made by the FAST Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) into this circular for reference, for example, disposition of assets in 49 U.S.C. 5334(h) is addressed in Chapter VI. In addition to statutory changes, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) in December, 2013 (78 FR 78590), which superseded the DOT's Common Grant Rule, codified at the now-rescinded 49 CFR parts 18 and 19. Due to the timing of the previous circular update and the publication of the Uniform Guidance, the prior version (C 9070.1G) continued to reference 49 CFR parts 18 and 19. FTA has updated these references, including definitions, in C 9070.1H.
In addition, FTA has made changes to the content and format of the circular for consistency with changes in other program circulars. For example, FTA has removed Chapter VIII, “Other Provisions” and included the content of that Chapter in the proposed Award Management Requirements Circular (C 5010.1F).
Section 5334(k) of title 49, U.S.C., requires FTA to follow applicable rulemaking procedures before issuing a statement that imposes a “binding obligation” on FTA recipients. The term “binding obligation” means a substantive policy statement, rule, or guidance document issued by FTA that grants rights, imposes obligations, produces significant effects on private interests, or effects a significant change in existing policy. The updated circular is largely a restatement and reorganization of the prior version and does not impose any new binding obligations on recipients. Therefore, FTA is issuing this circular update without notice and comment.
Chapter I of C 9070.1H is substantially similar to Chapter I of C 9070.1G. The Chapter includes information about FTA, the most recent authorizing legislation, and definitions. FTA has updated pertinent definitions to be consistent with the Uniform Guidance, Chapter 53 of title 49, and other circulars.
Chapter II of C 9070.1H is similar to Chapter II of C 9070.1G. As with C 9070.1G, the updated circular contains information on statutory authority, program goals and measures, designated recipient and FTA role in program administration, and relationship to other programs. Information related to recipient designation was moved from Chapter III to Chapter II. The goals and measures for the Section 5310 program have not changed. FTA has updated the relationship to other programs section to reflect changes in the law, including the removal of the repealed Job Access/Reverse Commute and New Freedom programs.
As with Chapter III of C 9070.1G, Chapter III of C 9070.1H contains the following information: apportionment of funds, funds availability, transfer of apportionments, consolidation of grants to insular areas, eligible direct recipients and subrecipients, private taxi operators as subrecipients, recipient administrative expenses, and local share of project costs. The content has been reordered but remains substantially similar to the content in C 9070.1G. As stated in the summary of Chapter II, FTA has moved information related to designated recipients to Chapter II. In addition, FTA has moved information related to eligible activities to Chapter IV.
FTA has clarified in the updated circular that local match is waived for insular areas. FTA has updated the section pertaining to eligible direct recipients to be consistent with the change to 49 U.S.C. 5310. Further, FTA has included Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) in the section related to private taxi operators and their eligibility as subrecipients and contractors. FTA has historically treated TNCs the same as taxis, given they both provide on-demand, exclusive ride service, primarily in automobiles. As with taxi operators, depending on the nature of the service—exclusive or shared ride—TNCs may be contractors or subrecipients.
Chapter IV in Circular 9070.1G was titled “Program Development.” FTA has moved much of the information found in Chapter IV of C 9070.1G to Chapter V of C 9070.1H or to the proposed C 5010.1F (see, 89 FR 11334). For example, FTA removed language on certifications and assurances and pre-award authority and included that information in Chapter III of the proposed C 5010.1F. The renamed Chapter IV now includes only information related to eligible projects, including capital reserve accounts. Eligible activities remain the same as in C 9070.1G.
The updated circular consolidates Chapters IV and V of C 9070.1G into one renamed chapter. The new Chapter V includes information related to coordination and planning requirements, development of the program of projects, development of the public transit-human services coordinated transportation plan, relationship of the coordinated plan to other planning processes, and labor protections. FTA has updated the sections on coordinated planning to reflect repeal of the JARC and New Freedom programs, and to reflect that the requirement to develop a coordinated plan remains the same but is no longer new. While FTA has made clarifying edits to the text, the language remains substantially similar to that found in C 9070.1G.
Chapter VI in the new C 9070.1H contains much of the same information as that found in Chapter VI of C
Chapter VII of the updated circular is substantially similar to Chapter VII of C 9070.1G, with minor clarifying edits. As stated above, FTA has removed Chapter VIII, Other Provisions from the updated circular and pertinent information can now be found in the updated C 5010.1F. Drug and alcohol requirements, formerly in Chapter VIII, have been moved to Chapter VI of this circular.
FTA has removed many of the appendices found in C 9070.1G, as the information is available in other circulars and resources and can be easily referenced. However, FTA has retained Appendix B, Sample Section 5310 Program of Projects, which is renamed as Appendix A. FTA has also retained Appendix D, Relationship Between Coordinated Planning and Metropolitan and Statewide Planning (Table), but is renamed as Appendix B.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability of final circular and response to comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made available on its website the final updated Award Management Requirements Circular (C 5010.1). The updated circular combines requirements applicable to all FTA financial assistance awards (referred to as “cross-cutting” requirements) and supersedes the previous Award Management Requirements Circular C 5010.1E. This notice responds to the comments FTA received on the proposed circular, which was published in the
The applicable date of this circular is November 1, 2024.
One may view the comments at docket number FTA-2024-0003. For access to the docket, please visit
For award management questions, Latrina Trotman, Office of Program Management, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room E46-301, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 366-2328, or email,
This notice announces the availability of FTA Circular C 5010.1F, Award Management Requirements. C 5010.1F replaces C 5010.1E, with an applicable date of November 1, 2024. This circular incorporates provisions of Federal law enacted since the publication of C 5010.1E, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58); the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) and United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) updated Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 (89 FR 30046, effective October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR part 1201, respectively; USDOT's regulation implementing the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) (49 CFR part 24); and USDOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) regulation (49 CFR part 26).
The purpose of Circular 5010.1 is to summarize generally applicable FTA administrative requirements for financial assistance awards (colloquially referred to as “cross-cutting requirements”) while consolidating other pre-existing cross-cutting guidance historically included in other FTA program circulars, including the pre-existing “Formula Grants for Rural Areas” (C 9040.1G), “Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities” (C 9070.1G), “Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program” (C 5100.1), “State of Good Repair Grants Program” (C 5300.1), and “Urbanized Area Formula Program” (C 9030.1E) circulars, reducing duplicative, redundant, and conflicting information in separate circulars. The last three of these circulars have been consolidated and superseded by a new circular, “Urbanized Areas Formula Grant Programs Guidance” (C 9050.1A), which is being published contemporaneously with this updated C 5010.1F. The first two are also being updated and superseded with circulars published contemporaneously.
Additionally, the revisions update or clarify descriptions of policy to explain current FTA practices. The circular updates include FTA policies regarding real property status reporting, the incidental use of FTA-funded project property, and transfer of real property to third parties for affordable housing. The circular updates also increase the use of graphics, tables, and weblinks to improve clarity. A copy of the circular is in the docket and is posted on FTA's Circulars page (
FTA published notice for the proposed C 5010.1F in the
FTA declined to make changes in response to some comments because the comments' subject matter was outside the scope of this circular. Topics that were outside the scope of the circular include: State DOT policies for subrecipients' completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for non-federally funded projects and notes on circular changes apparently intended for the commenter's internal communication.
If none of these apply to an incidental use, a 30-day notice is not required. Nevertheless, recipients must keep a record of all incidental uses, which may be reviewed during a compliance review or audit.
The commenter is correct that, in the case of insurance proceeds received for a vehicle taken out of service by casualty, FTA claims an interest in the insurance proceeds equal to the value of FTA's interest in the vehicle immediately before the vehicle was taken out of service. If insurance proceeds exceed the value of FTA's interest, the recipient may retain the excess. This policy protects the Federal financial interest and incentivizes recipients to adequately insure project property in their possession. FTA is not aware of examples of its policy driving the behavior the commenter is concerned about.
For more information, FTA encourages any interested recipient to speak with its insurer about the consequences of deliberately damaging vehicles to collect insurance proceeds.
FTA received some comments requesting changes to requirements that are based in statutes or regulations that FTA does not have the authority to change.
Comments below reflect areas where FTA made language changes in the circular in response to public comments.
Some of the revisions made in C 5010.1F describe changes in law or policy that took effect before the applicable date of C 5010.1F. Those changes apply according to their respective terms. Other circular provisions reflect long-standing FTA operating procedures to which notice was already provided or not required. Future compliance reviews conducted by FTA will account for the applicable effective dates.
FTA declines to exclude intercity bus uses as a potential type of incidental use. By statute, 49 U.S.C. 5302(15) and 49 U.S.C. 5311, intercity bus service is not public transportation. The circular's definition of incidental use does not diminish the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 5323(r) that transit agencies must provide reasonable access because it is reasonable to ensure that intercity bus use does not conflict with the transit purpose of the project property or the recipient's ability to maintain satisfactory continuing control over the use of the property. Therefore, reasonable access provided to intercity bus service at an FTA-funded facility may be an incidental use of such a facility.
The purpose of the circular's description of no- or low-income uses is to recognize a recipient's flexibility to allow less-than-market rates for uses that provide benefits that complement public transportation services notwithstanding their low potential for revenue to the transit system. The categorization of any use as an incidental use is not a statement as to the importance of the use.
Additionally, FTA declines to describe intercity bus as a no- or low-income use. The access provision of 49 U.S.C. 5323(r) requires that recipients not deny intercity bus companies reasonable access to transit assets, but reasonable access does not require no cost or low cost access, although a recipient may determine that intercity bus service is an appropriate no- or low-income use depending on the location and its unique situation. FTA intends that its recipients have the full flexibility to bargain for what is reasonable in each situation, taking into consideration the public benefit of the proposed use, the costs the recipient incurs by allowing the use, the impact of the use on the recipient's operations, market rates, the value of the access to the non-transit entity, possible alternative uses, and other factors as determined by the recipient.
FTA received several requests for clarification or more specificity on various requirements. In response, FTA revised language in the circular to address comments, as explained below.
However, FTA updated a reference from a superseded OMB memorandum to its current version and corrected a misstatement in the circular's text. The proposed version of C 5010.1F had said that 49 CFR 663.37 exempts some vehicle purchases from the auditing requirement, when 49 CFR 663.37 actually exempts those purchases from the resident inspector requirement.
In addition to the changes noted above, FTA made revisions in this final circular for consistency with changes in statute, regulation, and other FTA circulars, as well as minor, non-substantive revisions for clarity. For consistency with statute, FTA added language in Chapter IV identifying alternative fueling facilities as a potential type of incidental use of both real property and equipment in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(p). Additionally, FTA added a statement at the beginning of the circular that in cases for which the circular is inconsistent with changes to any law, the law will supersede this circular. Along with other non-substantive administrative changes that were recommended by several commenters, FTA made additional corrections in the circular for typographical errors, grammatical errors, and formatting.
Since C 5010.1F was released for public comment on February 14, 2024, several government-wide regulations have changed. FTA has accordingly updated the 5010.1 circular to reflect changes in the law since that time, including the following:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updated the government-wide policies for the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200 as well as parts 25, 175, and 180, effective October 1, 2024, including but not limited to the following:
•
•
•
Acting as Lead Agency, FHWA published a final rule on May 3, 2024, to amend and update 49 CFR part 24, which implements the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) for land acquisition and displacement activities by all Federal agencies and their financial assistance recipients (89 FR 36908). These regulations clarify existing requirements for implementing the Uniform Act, meet modern needs, and improve the agencies' service to individuals and businesses affected by Federal or federally assisted projects. All references to these regulations were updated in C 5010.1F.
On April 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Transportation published its final rule regarding Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs located at 49 CFR part 26 (89 FR 24898). Changes to the rule include a streamlined DBE certification process, adjustments to grant recipient reporting requirements, and other technical corrections. For FTA specifically, the rule creates two tiers of recipients: Tier I recipients who award more than $670,000 in FTA funds annually in 3rd party contracts and are subject to all DBE program provisions and Tier II recipient who award $670,000 or less in FTA funds annually and are subject to a subset of provisions.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability of final circular and response to comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has finalized an updated circular, to assist recipients in their implementation of the Rural Areas Formula Program and the rural component of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program. The update and consolidation of the circulars incorporates provisions from the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act; the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL); the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities; and current FTA policies and procedures. This notice responds to the comments FTA received on the proposed circular, which was published in the
The applicable date of this circular is November 1, 2024.
One may view the comments at docket number FTA-2024-0004. For access to the docket, please visit
For Rural Formula program questions, Matt Lange, Office of Transit Programs, Federal Transit Administration, US DOT Volpe Center, 220 Binney Street, Room-940, Cambridge, MA 02142, phone: (617) 494-6308, or email,
The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) final circular, “Rural Areas Formula Grant Programs Guidance,” C 9040.1H, is a consolidation of guidance for Rural Areas Formula Grants Program under 49 U.S.C. 5311 (Circular 9040.1) and the rural area component of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program under 49 U.S.C. 5339(a) (Circular 5100.1). Additionally, this updated circular incorporates provisions of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58), and other changes in law, and includes program-specific guidance for these formula programs. Additional requirements for all grant programs are identified in FTA's Award Management Requirements (Circular 5010.1).
The update to Circular 9040.1 consolidates and summarizes programmatic information, streamlines pre-existing guidance from the two program circulars, and reduces duplication of information provided between the Rural Areas Formula Program circular and FTA's other topic-specific circulars, including by moving certain text applicable to most or all FTA grant programs to Circular 5010.1. Furthermore, the circular incorporates statutory changes and clarifies policies as applied by FTA. Statutory changes for Section 5311 include additional sources of local share; in-kind match for intercity bus service; and fund allocations for tribes. Statutory changes for Section 5339(a) include the application of Section 5311 requirements to Section 5339 grants in rural areas; additional source for local share; additional eligible entities; and use of procurement tools authorized under Section 3019 of the FAST Act. Policy clarifications address topics in the existing program circulars, including consolidation of grants to
In addition to statutory and policy updates, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, also known as the Uniform Guidance, in December, 2013, which superseded the Common Grant Rule, formerly codified at 49 CFR parts 18 and 19. Due to the timing of the last circular update and the effective date of the Uniform Guidance, FTA Circular 9040.1G continued to reference 49 CFR parts 18 and 19. FTA has updated these references, including definitions, in Circular 9040.1H. Further, on April 22, 2024, OMB issued a final rule updating 2 CFR part 200 (89 FR 30046). Two of those updates resulted in changes to the draft C. 9040.1H, and those changes are discussed in this notice.
This notice provides a summary of comments received and FTA's response to those comments.
FTA published a notice for comment on this circular in the
As stated in the
FTA received several comments requesting FTA provide outreach on circular changes, as well as requests for more targeted technical assistance. FTA will provide external training on changes made to this and the other circulars that FTA is revising and will go into effect at the same time (C 9040.1H, C 9070.1H, C 5010.1F) soon after publication of the final circulars.
A portion of the comments that FTA received were requests for clarification or more specificity on various requirements. FTA revised language in the circular to address these comments, as explained below.
As stated above, OMB's 2024 update to 2 CFR part 200 increased the threshold, from $5,000 to $10,000, for the value of equipment, which impacts how a recipient may retain, sell, or dispose of the equipment at closeout. Items under $10,000 are considered supplies. In addition, the threshold for expenditures at which recipients of Federal awards are required to have independent audits conducted annually increased from $750,000 to $1,000,000. FTA has updated the final circular to reflect these changes.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability of final circular and response to comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has finalized a new circular entitled, “Urbanized Areas Formula Grant Programs Guidance,” which consolidates and replaces the circulars for the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (FTA Circular C 9030.1), the State of Good Repair Grants Program (FTA Circular C 5300.1), and the Urbanized Area formula component of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (FTA Circular C 5100.1). The update and consolidation of the circulars incorporate provisions from the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act; the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities; and current FTA policies and procedures. This notice responds to the comments FTA received on the proposed circular, which was published in the
The applicable date of this circular is November 1, 2024.
One may view the comments at docket number FTA-2023-0009. For access to the docket, please visit
For State of Good Repair Grant program questions, Ciara Williams, Office of Transit Programs, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room E44-412, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 366-8954, or email,
This notice announces the availability of FTA Circular C 9050.1A, “Urbanized Areas Formula Grant Programs Guidance,” which is a consolidation of guidance for the administration of grants for the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program under 49 U.S.C. 5307 (FTA Circular C 9030.1), State of Good Repair Grants Program under 49 U.S.C. 5337 (FTA Circular C 5300.1), and the urbanized area formula component of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program under 49 U.S.C. 5339(a) (FTA Circular C 5100.1). The C 9050.1A circular replaces these three circulars. Additionally, this circular incorporates provisions of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) and includes program-specific
The C 9050.1A circular consolidates and summarizes programmatic information, streamlines pre-existing guidance from the three previous program circulars, and reduces duplication of information provided between the Urbanized Area Formula Programs circular and FTA's other topic-specific circulars, including by moving certain text applicable to most or all of FTA's grant programs to FTA's Award Management Requirements Circular C 5010.1.
Additionally, C 9050.1A clarifies a number of policy issues as interpreted and applied by FTA. These clarifications address topics in the previous program circulars (C 9030.1, C 5300.1, and C 5100.1), including: how funds are apportioned; reallocations or transfers of apportionments; consolidation of grants to insular areas; intermodal use of formula funds; eligible projects and activities for each formula program; operating assistance limitations and exceptions; capital cost of contracting; the role of transportation network companies in providing public transportation services; period of availability to obligate funds flexed to the FTA formula programs from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); planning requirements; pre-award authority; revisions to required planning documents as a result of post-award modifications; and requirements pertaining to fares charged to seniors and persons with disabilities.
FTA published a notice in the
FTA received comments for which no changes were made because FTA has determined that the topics were outside of the scope of this circular. Topics that were outside the scope of the circular included: a request that FTA increase the size or scope of grants; inquiring whether FTA will require a subrecipient to ensure its contractors pay a livable wage; a request for information about financing programs administered by the U.S. DOT Build America Bureau; and updating guidance outside of FTA C 9050.1A. FTA also determines the following topics were outside the scope of the circular, although it discusses them in further detail because they were raised by more than one commenter:
The following comments regarding the circular resulted in no changes because either the requests sought changes to statutory requirements, the topics they raised already are addressed adequately in the circular, or because the comment is better addressed through direct guidance from FTA to the commenter.
FTA revised language in the circular to address the following comments, as explained below.
In addition to the changes noted above, FTA has made revisions in this final circular for consistency with changes in statute, regulation, and other FTA circulars, as well as minor, non-substantive revisions for clarity. For consistency with statute, FTA has added language in Chapter II, under “Designated Recipient and State Roles in Program Administration,” to match the language for the criteria for eligible recipients in 49 U.S.C. 5339(a)(4). FTA also deleted information about the “Over the Road Bus Accessibility Program” in Chapter IV, which was mentioned under the section discussing the capital cost of contracting in the proposed circular. FTA removed that reference from the circular because the funding program expired after Federal fiscal year 2012.
FTA also updated Public Transportation Safety Program (PTASP) information in Chapter V for consistency with revisions to the PTASP regulation (49 CFR part 673) that occurred after publication of the proposed circular.
In Chapter IV, under “Workforce Development Activities,” the reference to cost principles for Federal awards under 2 CFR 200.403(d) was updated with a clarifying change from “may not” to “must not” for consistency with OMB updates to 2 CFR part 200 that become effective October 1, 2024.
FTA made revisions in this final circular for consistency with language that was included in proposed FTA C 5010.1F “Award Management Requirements” and C 9040.1H “Rural Areas Formula Grant Programs Guidance” that were published for notice and comment. The name of this circular, C 9050.1A, has been updated to “Urbanized Areas Formula Grant Programs Guidance” for consistency with the naming structure of C 9040.1H. FTA also removed the statement that the circular contains guidance for the preparation of grant applications because that information is in C 5010.1F. FTA updated or added the following definitions for consistency with proposed C 5010.1F: the definition of “Capital Asset,” which was modified for consistency with 2 CFR 200.1; the definition of “Federal Interest,” which was updated to better align with FTA and Federal regulations, including in cases for which fair market value determinations are not readily discernable; the definition of “Incidental Use” to align with C 5010.1F; the definition of “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),” which was updated to clarify the role in FTA-funded projects; the definition of “Preventive Maintenance,” which was updated to provide more specificity; added the definition of “Project Property” for consistency with C 5010.1F; removed the definition of “Spare Parts” as it is not a term used in the circular; and the definition of “State of Good Repair” was clarified with non-substantive changes. For consistency with C 9040.1H, the definition of “State” was updated to include the 49 U.S.C. 5339 reference to the distinction between “State” and “territory,” and a similar revision was made to note territories under the section explaining the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Formula Program under 49 U.S.C. 5339(a) in Chapter III.
Along with other non-substantive administrative changes that were recommended by several commenters, FTA made additional corrections in the circular for typographical errors, grammatical errors, and formatting.
Finally, FTA removed outdated language establishing a threshold level of more than one mile of fixed guideway in order for UZAs to receive State of Good Repair funds in Chapter III under the “State of Good Repair Grants program (Section 5337).” The outdated requirement was not based in statute and has not been FTA policy for a significant amount of time. Removing this threshold requirement from the circular does not impact any prospective applicants of State of Good Repair funds and is not a change in existing policy.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2012-2023 Model S, MY 2016-2024 Model X, MY 2017-2023 Model 3, MY 2019-2024 Model Y, and MY 2024 Cybertruck Tesla vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105,
Send comments on or before October 28, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Vince Williams, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-2319.
Tesla filed a noncompliance report (Recall 24V-051) dated January 30, 2024, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
NHTSA is publishing this notice of receipt of Tesla's petition under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. The statements included in this notice do not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Tesla states that the subject noncompliance was corrected in vehicle production, and vehicles in the field were also remedied. Tesla believes that “[a]ny possible safety risk, however remote, has been addressed.” Tesla explains that the remedy involves increasing the font size of the Brake, Park, and ABS visual warning indicators to a minimum of 3.2 mm (
Tesla states that on January 23, 2024, a software release correcting the subject noncompliance was introduced to the affected Model S, X, 3, and Y in production. On January 24, 2024, the software release correcting the noncompliance in the Cybertruck was introduced. Tesla states that the subject vehicles already in the field received the remedy as part of an over-the-air (OTA) software release for installation. The remedy was deployed to certain vehicles on January 23, 2024, and to the remaining vehicles on February 2, 2024.
Tesla reports that as of February 20, 2024, 70 percent of all subject vehicles in the field have installed the software correcting the noncompliance and all later software releases will also include the remedy. Tesla says that owners of any remaining affected vehicles that are online and have connectivity would need to accept the installation of the software release, or any later software release, on their vehicle. Tesla explains that this can be done immediately via the owner's Tesla smartphone application or on the vehicle user interface touchscreen. However, Tesla contends that even if an owner does not install the software release or any later version, the performance of the vehicle's brake system and park function remains unaffected by the subject noncompliance. According to Tesla, both systems continue to operate safely and as designed. Tesla also states that while it understands not dispositive in considering a petition for inconsequential noncompliance, Tesla is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or deaths that may be related to the noncompliance.
Tesla asserts that the Brake, Park, and ABS visual warning indicators remain easily perceptible despite the subject noncompliance because they are positioned prominently and dynamically within the driver's direct field of vision on the instrument cluster alongside other vehicle data and control displays. Tesla adds that they also feature descriptive text and universal ISO symbols commonly used in motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The text in the indicators is capitalized for improved visibility and readability with compliant colors and contrast against the background. Tesla believes that the functionality of these indicators remains unaffected when wear or failure of the brake, park, and ABS systems is detected, regardless of the letter font size. Tesla adds that owners of the subject vehicles are familiar with the Brake, Park, and ABS visual warning indicators, as they are self-explanatory and explained in the owner's manual provided with the vehicle.
Tesla contends that NHTSA has established that its “only criteria” in assessing a petition for a decision of inconsequential noncompliance is determining if the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety.
Moreover, Tesla argues that the subject noncompliance aligns with the type of labeling noncompliance that NHTSA finds appropriate for a determination of inconsequentiality.
1. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 88 FR 61006 (Sept. 6, 2023). Tesla states that in this case, NHTSA found that “brake wear indicators that do not meet the minimum lettering height requirements but that use correct coloring and symbols and are prominently positioned with the driver's direct field of vision do not have an adverse effect on vehicle safety.”
2. General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 79 FR 9041 (Feb. 14, 2014). Tesla states that NHTSA found “that Park Brake indicators that are displayed using ISO symbols instead of the symbols required by FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 135 have no effect on brake performance, are illuminated as required and are described in the owner's manual, and drivers recognize and understand them.”
3. General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 (December 20, 2016) Tesla states that NHTSA found “that park brake indicators that do not meet the minimum letter height requirements as specified in FMVSS No. 135 are more pronounced by all capitalized letters and continue to be legible, conspicuously located, and illuminated with a contrasting background as required.”
Tesla argues that the subject noncompliance is similar to the visual warning indicators at issue in these granted petitions because they “illuminate as required, are prominently positioned within the driver's direct field of vision, and use universal ISO symbols that are easily recognizable.” Furthermore, Tesla asserts that “while the text of the indicators does not meet the minimum height requirements of FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 135, the text is easily legible, since each letter is capitalized and uniform in height, and the colors are compliant and in contrast to the background of the text.”
Tesla adds that it is only petitioning for an exemption from the notification requirements of 49 U.S.C 30118 and 30119 and not the remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C 30119 and 30120 because the subject noncompliance has been remedied and the remedy is available for any remaining affected vehicle owners to install. Tesla states that “[a]s specified in the Safety Act, the only factor that NHTSA may use to evaluate
Tesla concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Tesla no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Tesla notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; request for comments.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is proposing to waive the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act's domestic preference requirements for certain products that Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) needs for its Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization (NGDISM) grant project. The proposed waiver would exempt the following products used in PGW's project from BABA requirements on the basis of nonavailability: electro-fusion tapping tees, anodeless risers, transition fittings, lockwing valves, magnesium anodes, service adapters, curb valves, caps, couplings, and stiffeners. In accordance with section 70914(c) of BABA, PHMSA is seeking public comments on the proposed waiver.
Comments must be received by October 15, 2024.
Please submit your comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Brandon Hollingshead, PHMSA Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-4400, or via email at
A copy of this Notice, all comments received on this Notice, and all background material may be viewed online at
Confidential Business Information (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 notice 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 notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. You may ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this Notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to: Mr. Brandon Hollingshead, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, E26-316, Washington, DC 20590. Any comment submissions that PHMSA receives that are not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this matter.
The NGDISM program was authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58). The program provides Federal funding to municipal- or community-owned natural gas utilities (not including for-profit entities) to repair, rehabilitate, or replace their natural gas distribution pipeline systems or portions thereof, or to acquire equipment to (1) reduce incidents and fatalities and (2) avoid economic losses. The IIJA appropriates $200 million per year for each of Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 through 2026 for the NGDISM program ($1 billion in total). The IIJA provides that 2 percent of this amount shall be used to pay the administrative expenses of the NGDISM program. Accordingly, the total amount expected to be awarded as grant funding over the five-year period is $980,000,000. In FY2022, PHMSA awarded approximately $196 million to 37 municipal- and community-owned natural gas utilities across the nation to
Congress also enacted the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA), providing that “none of the funds made available for a Federal financial assistance program for infrastructure . . . may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States.” IIJA, Public Law 117-58, section 70914(a). Under IIJA section 70914(b), PHMSA has authority to waive the requirements of BABA (1) if a domestic product is unavailable, (2) if using a domestic product would present an unreasonable cost, or (3) if application of BABA would not be in the public interest.
In FY2022, PGW was awarded $10 million in NGDISM grant funding to help fund the replacement of “at-risk” cast iron natural gas main in historically disadvantaged census tracts within the City of Philadelphia as part of its “Citywide Neighborhood Safety and Modernization” project. The project, which will be located entirely within Philadelphia's historically disadvantaged census tracts, will replace approximately 6 miles of aging cast iron, ductile iron, and unprotected steel pipelines with modern polyethylene plastic pipe that is less susceptible to breakage due to earth movement—the biggest threat to PGW's existing cast iron pipelines, especially during the winter months.
PGW seeks a waiver of BABA requirements for certain products on the basis of nonavailability. The specific essential products PGW seeks a waiver for are listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To conduct market research, PGW initially engaged with its normal suppliers of gas distribution pipeline parts. Eight of PGW's normal suppliers indicated that they could provide BABA-compliant products but were not willing to certify to BABA compliance. One of PGW's alternate suppliers indicated it could provide BABA-compliant caps, couplings, and stiffeners, albeit at an increased cost and a long lead time which would cause an estimated 36-week delay in PGW's construction schedule, which is untenable for PGW's project. PGW also reached out to neighboring gas utilities to inquire about their sources but was likewise unable to locate a domestic source for these products that way.
On April 10, 2024, in an effort to locate additional alternative suppliers, PGW issued a Request for Quotation (RFQ) titled “One Time Purchase of BABA Compliant Alternatives.” The RFQ was publicly posted to PGW's Procureware website, and was open from April 10, 2024 until April 29, 2024. PGW invited 80 suppliers and manufacturers to submit bids. As a result of the RFQ, PGW identified BABA-compliant alternatives for 8 types of products for which PGW was not previously able to find domestic sources. However, PGW still was not able to find suitable or readily available alternatives for the 10 products proposed to be waived herein.
On these bases, PHMSA has preliminarily determined that these products are not manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality.
PHMSA proposes to waive the requirements of BABA for the above listed products for PGW's “Citywide Neighborhood Safety and Modernization” project funded by NGDISM grant funds. The waiver would be applicable only to PGW's project; it would not be applicable to any other NGDISM grant recipient's projects. The proposed waiver would be effective from the effective date of the final waiver through the period of performance and closeout of PHMSA's financial assistance for the project, which is estimated to be June 30, 2029. If the sources of Federal financial assistance applied to the project are changed, PHMSA will consider whether the waiver continues to be warranted, taking into account the project's development status at that time and any changes in market conditions for the products subject to the waiver.
PGW was awarded $10 million in NGDISM grant funding in FY2022. However, labor costs, rather than materials costs, typically make up the majority of costs in pipeline replacement projects. PGW estimates
By contrast, the proposed waiver would have a significant impact on PGW's ability to successfully complete its NGDISM projects. Absent the proposed waiver, PGW will not be able to comply with BABA requirements for the above listed products, either because PGW's market research was not able to identify any domestic sources, or it is not feasible for PGW to utilize the domestic source it did identify due to the extreme construction delays that would result.
While PGW did find a domestic source for caps, couplings, and stiffeners, the manufacturer indicated that it would need a lead time of 14- to 16-weeks from the date of order before it could supply BABA-compliant versions of these products to PGW. To ensure the safety of the public, PGW would first need to order a sample of the new products to conduct quality control testing, which PGW indicated could take up to 4 weeks. If the new products pass quality control testing, PGW would then need to place a full order for the new products, resulting in another 14- to 16-week lead time to receive them. The entire process, from initial ordering of sample products to receipt and acceptance of the full order, could result in a construction delay of up to 36 weeks. Distribution gas construction cannot proceed without these primary components and the alternative extended lead time prolongs the time of exposure to potential leaks and threats to life and property. A delayed construction schedule could result in safety impacts for PGW's customers, especially those located in five USDOT-designated historically disadvantaged neighborhoods within the project area. PGW estimates that such a delay would push its projected FY2025 project completion to the summer of FY2026, subjecting these customers to an additional winter season with sag service by cast iron pipes—a time when gas leaks are more likely to occur due to frost heave and other winter ground movement. Combined with the age of PGW's cast iron pipelines in these neighborhoods, this would create an appreciably increased risk to residents in these neighborhoods.
Under OMB Memorandum M-24-02, agencies are expected to assess “whether a significant portion of any cost advantage of a foreign-sourced product is the result of the use of dumped steel, iron, or manufactured products or the use of injuriously subsidized steel, iron, or manufactured products” as appropriate before granting a public interest waiver. PHMSA's analysis has concluded that this assessment is not applicable to this waiver, as it is being proposed on the basis of nonavailability, rather than public interest or unreasonable cost.
PHMSA will consider all comments received in the initial 15-day comment period during our consideration of the proposed waiver, as required by section 70914(c)(2) of the IIJA. Comments received after this period, but before notice of our finding is published in the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; request for comments.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to waive the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act's domestic preference requirements for certain products that City Utilities of Springfield (City Utilities) will use in its Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization (NGDISM) grant project. The proposed waiver would exempt the following products used in City Utilities' project from BABA requirements on the basis of nonavailability: locator markers; meter stops with insulated unions; magnesium anodes; 1A meter swivels, nuts, and washers; and direct bury lugs. In accordance with section 70914(c) of BABA, PHMSA is seeking public comments on the proposed waiver.
Comments must be received by October 15, 2024.
Please submit your comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Brandon Hollingshead, PHMSA Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-4400, or via email at
A copy of this Notice, all comments received on this Notice, and all background material may be viewed online at
Confidential Business Information (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 notice 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 notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. You may ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as
The NGDISM program was authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58). The program provides Federal funding to municipal- or community-owned natural gas utilities (not including for-profit entities) to repair, rehabilitate, or replace their natural gas distribution pipeline systems or portions thereof, or to acquire equipment to (1) reduce incidents and fatalities and (2) avoid economic losses. The IIJA appropriates $200 million per year for each of Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 through 2026 for the NGDISM program ($1 billion in total). The IIJA provides that 2 percent of this amount shall be used to pay the administrative expenses of the NGDISM program. Accordingly, the total amount expected to be awarded as grant funding over the five-year period is $980,000,000. In FY2022, PHMSA awarded approximately $196 million to 37 municipal- and community-owned natural gas utilities across the nation to fund pipeline replacement projects and the purchase of leak-detection equipment.
Congress also enacted the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA), providing that “none of the funds made available for a Federal financial assistance program for infrastructure . . . may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States.” IIJA, Public Law 117-58, section 70914(a). Under IIJA section 70914(b), PHMSA has authority to waive the requirements of BABA (1) if a domestic product is unavailable, (2) if using a domestic product would present an unreasonable cost, or (3) if application of BABA would not be in the public interest.
In FY2022, City Utilities was awarded $10 million in NGDISM grant funding to help fund its “Legacy Plastic Pipe Replacement Project,” which it initiated in 2010. City Utilities operates approximately 500 miles of “Aldyl A” plastic distribution pipeline within disadvantaged areas of Springfield, Missouri. Aldyl A is a type of plastic commonly used in gas pipelines in the 1960s and 1970s. Aldyl A has since been found to be susceptible to premature brittle-like failures when subjected to stress intensification, presenting a high risk of leakage and associated safety hazards. Additionally, the Aldyl A pipe operated by City Utilities lacks continuous tracer wire, which is used to locate underground pipelines prior to excavation to avoid damaging the pipelines in the course of excavation. The $10 million awarded would allow City Utilities to speed up its Legacy Plastic Pipe Replacement Project by funding the replacement of approximately 13.7 miles of legacy Aldyl A pipe and approximately 1,409 legacy plastic gas services with modern, industry-standard polyethylene pipe. City Utilities will also use the grant funds to install a locator system on the new pipeline, allowing the pipe to be located during subsequent excavations near the pipeline, thereby ensuring the pipe is not damaged.
On December 13, 2023, City Utilities issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) seeking, among other products, locator markers; meter stops with insulated union; magnesium anodes; 1A meter swivels, nuts, and washers; and direct bury lugs. A more detailed description of each of these products is provided below:
•
•
•
•
•
The IFB remained open for more than a month, between December 13, 2023, and January 15, 2024. In response to the IFB, City Utilities received seven responsive bids. However, each of the respondents to the IFB represented that they would not be able to certify compliance with BABA requirements for the above listed products.
Additionally, prior to City Utilities requesting this waiver, PHMSA independently engaged the supplier scouting services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST MEP) to search for domestic manufacturers of 1A meter swivels, nuts, and washers. At the conclusion of the process, NIST MEP identified several companies who stated they had the capability to manufacture these products. However, these companies declined to do so because it would be cost prohibitive for them to begin domestic manufacture of these products in the quantities that City Utilities needs to purchase for its NGDISM project. Accordingly, supplier scouting did not result in identification of any sources that could or would manufacture these products domestically.
On these bases, PHMSA has determined that locator markers, meter stops with insulated unions, magnesium anodes, 1A meter swivels, nuts, and washers, and direct bury lugs are not manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality.
PHMSA proposes to waive the requirements of BABA for the above listed products for City Utilities' Legacy Plastic Pipe Replacement Project funded by NGDISM grant funds. The waiver would be applicable only to City Utilities' project; it would not be applicable to any other NGDISM grant recipient's projects. The proposed waiver would be effective from the effective date of the final waiver through
Although City Utilities was awarded $10 million in NGDISM grant funding in FY2022, the majority of funding in NGDISM projects typically goes towards labor costs rather than materials costs. City Utilities estimates that for its FY2022 project the total cost of the products proposed to be waived equals approximately $72,000, divided across five types of products. NIST MEP identified several companies who have the capability to manufacture 1A meter swivels, nuts, and washers, yet declined to do so after engagement with City Utilities on the grounds that it would be cost prohibitive to manufacture these products at the relatively small scale needed by City Utilities.
By contrast, the proposed waiver would have a large impact on City Utilities' ability to successfully complete its NGDISM project and deliver meaningful safety benefits to disadvantaged areas of Springfield, MO. All of the products listed herein are essential to the proper construction of a natural gas distribution pipeline. If this waiver is not approved, City Utilities' project will not be completed successfully. Additionally, City Utilities estimates that its total materials costs for the project will equal approximately $800,000. The cost of the products proposed to be waived therefore equates to 9 percent of City Utilities' total materials costs, which is above the five percent threshold applicable to DOT's Waiver of Buy America Requirements for De Minimis Costs and Small Grants (88 FR 55817).
Under OMB Memorandum M-24-02, agencies are expected to assess “whether a significant portion of any cost advantage of a foreign-sourced product is the result of the use of dumped steel, iron, or manufactured products or the use of injuriously subsidized steel, iron, or manufactured products” as appropriate before granting a public interest waiver. PHMSA's analysis has concluded that this assessment is not applicable to this waiver, as it is being proposed on the basis of nonavailability, rather than public interest or unreasonable cost.
PHMSA will consider all comments received in the initial 15-day comment period during our consideration of the proposed waiver, as required by Section 70914(c)(2) of the IIJA. Comments received after this period, but before notice of our finding is published in the
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 23, 2024, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Supervisory Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations with Total Consolidated Assets of More Than $10 Billion.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 28, 2024.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The guidance provides an overview of how a banking organization should structure its stress testing activities to ensure that those activities fit into the banking organization's overall risk management. The purpose of the guidance is to outline broad principles for a satisfactory stress testing framework and describe how stress testing should be used. In addition, the guidance sets forth high-level recommendations for the development of a stress testing framework with clearly defined objectives; well-designed scenarios tailored to the organization's business and risks; well-documented assumptions; conceptually sound methodologies to assess potential impact to the organization's financial condition; informative management reports; recommended actions based on stress test results; and policies and procedures for the framework. The information collected informs how banking organizations use stress testing as a component of risk management and as a tool for capital and liquidity planning. The OCC reviews such materials as part of its supervisory process, which includes review of the risk-management capabilities of OCC-supervised banking organizations. While the guidance is not intended to provide detailed instructions for conducting stress testing for any particular risk or business area, it does describe several types of stress testing activities and how they may be most appropriately used by banking organizations. The guidance does not explicitly address the stress testing requirements imposed upon certain banking organizations by section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent to enter into an enhanced-use lease.
The purpose of this
C. Brett Simms, Executive Director, Office of Asset Enterprise Management, Office of Management, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202-632-7092. This is not a toll-free number.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8161,
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the Special Medical Advisory Group (the Committee) will meet on September 25-26, 2024, at the Palo Alto VA Medical Center (Celebration Room), 3801 Miranda Avenue, in Palo Alto, CA. The September meeting sessions will begin and end as follows:
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of Veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Veterans Health Administration.
On September 25, 2024, the agenda for the meeting will include discussions on strategies for increasing access, community care program, challenges to growth, digital health overview, tele-urgent and emergent care, artificial intelligence, efforts to reduce administrative burdens for providers, nursing infrastructure, electronic health record management deployment and behavioral and mental health care, and strategy for long-COVID management.
The Committee is revising its September meeting agenda to receive additional information and data. On September 26th, 9 a.m. PT, the Committee will call the meeting to order and introduce a revised meeting agenda schedule, which incorporates additional presentations and discussion open to the public. The Parent Committee meeting will pause from 9:15 a.m. PT to 1:15 p.m. PT to accommodate its Subcommittee engagement with local VA medical center leadership for a facility and campus tour as well as briefing on proprietary information. The Parent Committee will reopen the meeting for the public from 1:15 p.m. PT to 3 p.m. PT. Meeting participation data and points of contact remain unchanged.
Members of the Committee may join in person or virtually. The meeting is open to the public. The public is encouraged to attend virtually due to seating limitations in the physical meeting space. Persons can joined by phone at 404-397-1596 (Access code: 28225920144) and via Webex at:
Members of the public may also submit written statements in advance for review by the Committee to: Department of Veterans Affairs, Special Medical Advisory Group—Office of Under Secretary for Health (10), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420 or by email at:
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should email
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2024.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.