I. Background

The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act) became law on January 14, 2019. 1 The Evidence Act seeks to “advance[ ] the evidence building functions in the Federal Government by improving access to data and expanding evaluation capacity.”  2 Part of advancing evidence-building functions is enhancing the foundation for generating high quality evidence, including improving the ability of Recognized Statistical Agencies and Units (RSAUs) to produce relevant, timely, credible, accurate, and objective statistical information. Title III of the Evidence Act (known as the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2018, or CIPSEA 2018) updated and enhanced the original Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (known as CIPSEA 2002)  3 by, among other things, codifying the four fundamental responsibilities of RSAUs and requiring other Federal agencies to enable, support, and facilitate RSAUs in upholding these responsibilities. The four fundamental responsibilities are as follows:  4

(1) produce and disseminate relevant and timely statistical information;

(2) conduct credible and accurate statistical activities;

(3) conduct objective statistical activities; and

(4) protect the trust of information providers by ensuring the confidentiality and exclusive statistical use of their responses.

In August 2023, OMB issued a proposed rule that would provide direction to agencies in carrying out these responsibilities. 5 After considering comments on the proposed rule, OMB issues this final rule to be codified at 5 CFR part 1321, which sets forth requirements for RSAUs to carry out their fundamental responsibilities and for agencies to enable, support, and facilitate RSAUs in carrying out their fundamental responsibilities.

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3563(c) and the general authority in 44 U.S.C. 3562(a) to promulgate rules to ensure consistent interpretation by Federal agencies of the requirements of CIPSEA 2018, OMB finalizes this rule to provide direction to agencies in carrying out the responsibilities described in section 3563. Section 3563 describes the fundamental responsibilities that RSAUs must adhere to and charges all Federal agencies with enabling, supporting, and facilitating RSAUs in meeting these responsibilities.

Federal statistics have informed decision making in the United States since its founding. The first constitutionally mandated census of population was in 1790. 6 The 1790 Census planted the seeds for what is referred to today as the Federal statistical system. Over the 19th century, the system continued to blossom into a specialized and decentralized yet interconnected network of agencies, units, programs, and officials across the Government addressing emerging information demands of the Nation, including in the fields of tax, agriculture, education, and labor. The 20th Century presented new policy needs leading to further expansion of the Federal statistical system to include the fields of commerce, public health, energy, justice, transportation, and more. More than two decades into the 21st century, the Federal statistical system continues to provide the gold-standard for impartial, trusted Federal statistics foundational to informing decisions across the public and private sectors. Increasingly, collaboration is required across the Federal statistical system to unlock greater efficiencies and leverage diverse expertise. 7

The Federal Statistical System. The Federal statistical system collects and transforms data into useful, objective information and makes it readily and equitably available to data users, while protecting the responses of individual data providers. Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments; businesses; and the public all trust this information to be credible and reliable and use it to make informed decisions. The Federal statistical system includes the following entities and officials:

• Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States. Led by the Chief Statistician of the United States, the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States at OMB has the statutory authority to coordinate the Federal statistical system to ensure its efficiency and effectiveness, as well as the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes. 8 The office accomplishes this by promulgating rules, developing and maintaining statistical policies and standards, identifying priorities for improving statistical programs, assessing statistical agency budgets, reviewing and approving collections of information from RSAUs, and coordinating U.S. participation in international statistical activities, among other functions.

• Sixteen RSAUs. OMB currently recognizes 16 statistical agencies and units under CIPSEA (See Table 1). 9 OMB-recognized agencies or units are organizational units of the Executive Branch whose activities are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing, or analysis of information for statistical purposes, 10 covering topics such as the economy, workforce, energy, agriculture, foreign trade, education, housing, crime, transportation, and health.

• Approximately 100 other statistical programs. 11 These other Federal statistical programs produce and disseminate statistics in support of other mission areas and conduct a variety of evidence-building functions, including program evaluation, scientific research, data collection, policy and program analysis, and the provision of funding and other support for external research.

• Twenty-Four Statistical Officials. Pursuant to the Evidence Act, each Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) agency  12 has designated a senior staff person in the agency to be the Statistical Official with the authority and responsibility to advise across the agency on statistical policy, techniques, and procedures, and to champion statistical data quality and confidentiality. At the 11 CFO Act agencies that contain an RSAU, the head of that RSAU has been designated the Statistical Official, as required by OMB M-19-23. 13

• Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP). Chaired by the Chief Statistician of the United States, the ICSP was established to advise and assist OMB, through the Chief Statistician of the United States, in carrying out its statutory responsibility to coordinate the Federal statistical system. 14 The ICSP supports the Federal statistical system's vision to operate as a seamless system and its critical role supporting evidence-based decision making. The ICSP sets strategic goals on issues such as modernizing the statistical system, ensuring data quality and confidentiality, and providing safe and appropriate data access, as well as enhancing coordination and collaboration across the system. The ICSP currently includes 29 members in addition to the Chair, including the head of each RSAU and each Statistical Official; however, 11 of the Statistical Officials are also heads of RSAUs.

Brief History of RSAUs. In June 1997, OMB issued the “Order Providing for the Confidentiality of Statistical Information,” (1997 Order) which “clarifie[d] and amplifie[d] the privileged status afforded `confidential statistical data.' ”  15 The 1997 Order established a consistent confidentiality policy across statistical agencies and units “whose activities are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing, or analysis of information for statistical purposes” as “determined by the Office of Management and Budget.” In the 1997 Order, OMB determined 12 statistical agencies and units would be subject to the order. 16 About five years later, CIPSEA 2002 was enacted, which codified OMB's authority to determine whether an agency or unit is a statistical agency or unit subject to the consistent and heightened protections for confidential statistical data under CIPSEA 2002. 17 In 2007, OMB issued CIPSEA 2002 implementation guidance (2007 guidance) and recognized the 12 statistical agencies and units previously identified in the 1997 Order plus two additional statistical agencies or units. 18 These 14 agencies and units listed in the 2007 guidance were known as recognized statistical agencies and units. Since 2007, OMB added two more units for a total of 16 RSAUs. 19 In accordance with the 2007 guidance, OMB maintains a publicly available list of RSAUs online, now available at https://www.StatsPolicy.gov. Table 1 provides a list of the current 16 RSAUs and their highest-level organization.

Related authorities. Critical to a healthy, relevant Federal statistical system has been the development and implementation of statutes, rules, policies, and principles (hereafter collectively referred to as “authorities”) to support its growth. Over the years, recognizing challenges faced by the Federal statistical system as it grew, Congress, the Executive Branch, and outside experts—both nationally and internationally—have built a framework of authorities to address such challenges. In addition, maintaining the public's trust in the statistical information produced by the Federal statistical system is critical to the usefulness of the statistical information, and authorities have been issued and revised over time to promote the Federal statistical system's ability to provide relevant, timely, credible, accurate, and objective statistical information. Importantly, many authorities, such as individual entity authorizing statutes and cross-system statutes, co-exist and complement one another to promote a strong, vibrant, interconnected Federal statistical system. These authorities generally support the ability of the Federal statistical system to create relevant, timely, credible, accurate, and objective statistics in a way that promotes the trust of data providers. Some of the most relevant authorities to this final rule include the Evidence Act, CIPSEA 2002, CIPSEA 2018, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), and OMB Statistical Policy Directive Nos. 1, 3, and 4. In addition, other external entities—both domestic and international—have published their perspectives on how RSAUs should meet their missions to produce relevant, timely credible, accurate, and objective Federal statistics; including the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Principles and Practices for a Federal Statistical Agency (referred to as Principles and Practices); the United Nations' Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics;  20 the European Statistics Code of Practice;  21 and the American Statistical Association's Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice. 22 The proposed rule preamble includes a longer description of these related authorities.

Over many years and based on lessons learned, certain responsibilities, standards, and protections have been developed and implemented to strengthen the Federal statistical system's ability to meet its mission reliably and objectively, which requires an appropriate level of autonomy and authority for RSAUs. 23 The concepts of autonomy and authority as codified in this rule are important for RSAUs to meet the fundamental responsibilities enumerated in 44 U.S.C. 3563. The autonomy and authority of RSAUs must be balanced with the other responsibilities and needs of RSAUs, as well as other affected Federal agencies. Similar to the proposed rule, this final rule aims to explicate where autonomous decision-making authority is important and why.

In addition, CIPSEA 2018 contemplates a common framework for protecting statistical data, acquiring administrative or program data, and disseminating statistical data securely. This rule seeks to lay the foundation for advancing this common framework by facilitating appropriate interagency engagement and coordination and ensuring implementation is successful across the Federal Government. 24 The organizational structure of agencies and departments in relation to RSAUs is important for successful implementation of this rule. Currently, each RSAU is part of a larger organization, with varying reporting structures. The heads of some RSAUs are appointed by the President (either with or without Senate confirmation), while others are senior career officials. Likewise, the heads of some RSAUs report directly to the Secretary, or equivalent head, of their highest organizational level, such as the Department, while others have several intervening layers of reporting within their organizations.

CIPSEA 2018 also requires OMB to issue guidance on the requirements and processes for seeking and obtaining OMB recognition as a new RSAU. That guidance is forthcoming; however, it should be noted that, at a minimum, agencies and units seeking this designation, along with their parent agencies, will be required to demonstrate a commitment to upholding the requirements in this rule.

OMB published an NPRM entitled “Fundamental Responsibilities of Recognized Statistical Agencies and Units” on August 18, 2023 (the proposed rule), with comments requested by October 2, 2023. As a general matter, in developing the proposed rule, OMB followed the approach of adhering to the wider principles and practices contained in Statistical Policy Directive No. 1, which already contained the fundamental responsibilities now codified in CIPSEA 2018 and gave RSAUs specific guidance on how to adhere to those responsibilities. 25 Many of the provisions included in the proposed rule were drawn directly or adapted from Statistical Policy Directive No. 1.

After nearly a decade of the Federal Government operating under Statistical Policy Directive No. 1, experience has clarified the fundamental responsibilities and how to ensure RSAUs are able to carry out those responsibilities. In consideration of that experience, the proposed rule sought to address existing and emerging challenges and issues to create a lasting and effective policy. In the proposed rule, OMB acknowledged some overlap between the proposed rule and Statistical Policy Directive No. 1. OMB also clarified the intent of the proposed rule to address existing and emerging challenges and issues that are not addressed by Statistical Policy Directive No. 1, to ensure that RSAUs are able to meet their fundamental responsibilities. For example, the proposed rule included provisions to ensure RSAUs have their own websites and have an opportunity to participate in discussions with OMB regarding their own budget requests. The proposed rule also included compliance review requirements to promote compliance with the proposed rule's provisions.

OMB requested comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, as well as a number of specific issues. A total of 30 unique, in-scope public comments were received, and all comments are viewable at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OMB-2023-0015. Commenters included private citizens, professional associations relevant to Federal statistics, former agency leadership, and academics. Many comments expressed support for the proposed rule. Some specifically stated that, even if OMB did not make any changes to the proposed rule, it would be a significant improvement from the status quo.

In order to implement the legislative mandates under 44 U.S.C. 3563, OMB is finalizing requirements for Federal agencies to enable, support, and facilitate the fundamental responsibilities of RSAUs. After careful consideration of the comments, OMB is codifying the proposed rule at 5 CFR part 1321, with certain modifications made in response to comments and certain modifications to improve the clarity and readability of the rule.

Throughout the rule text, OMB made global modifications to address the following:

• OMB made changes throughout the rule text to update the use of “shall” to “must” for clarity. 26 In this rule, uses of “must,” “shall,” or “will” indicate requirements.

• OMB revised the terms “regulation” and “regulations” to “rule” for clarity.

• OMB added titles to all first level provisions within Sections for clarity and readability.

• OMB spelled out the acronyms OMB (Office of Management and Budget), CIPSEA (Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act), and SAOP (Senior Agency Official for Privacy).

• OMB added clarifying phrases such as “in this part” to clarify the scope of certain provisions.

• OMB adjusted language to reflect updated terms with definitions, such as “parent agency head.”

• OMB edited to address grammar issues and typos.

• OMB edited to conform to Office of the Federal Register requirements for references.

This section of the preamble provides a discussion of the comments received on the proposed rule and an explanation of the final rule. OMB notes that the preamble of the proposed rule  27 provided detailed background information, much of which is not repeated here, but remains equally relevant, unless changes were made as outlined in this section.

OMB issues this rule to implement 44 U.S.C. 3563. The proposed rule stated that the authority for issuing 5 CFR part 1321 is under the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950;  28 the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;  29 the Information Quality Act;  30 and Title III of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), also known as CIPSEA 2018. 31 OMB did not receive any comments on this section of the proposed rule; however, because the rule as proposed and as finalized includes requirements related to authorities throughout the Evidence Act, and is not limited to Title III (CIPSEA 2018), the final rule at § 1321.1 adds a specific reference to the broader Evidence Act. Otherwise, OMB finalizes § 1321.1 as proposed.

The final rule at § 1321.2 defines terms used in this rule. In general, OMB revised the first sentence to remove “for purposes of implementing 5 U.S.C. 314 and all of title III of the Evidence Act” for accuracy because the definitions are for this rule, not for those sections of law. In addition, OMB has removed specific regulatory citations for each definition and reordered definitions so they are alphabetical for clarity. OMB also made updates to use defined terms when available and to follow the Government Printing Office style guide, as well as to remove small typos and duplicative text for clarity and accuracy.

Similar to the proposed rule, definitions in the final rule are aligned with existing statutes and rules wherever possible. OMB received comments on the following proposed definitions: accurate, credible, confidentiality, identifiable form, parent agency, statistical law, and statistical products. In response to these comments this rule finalizes some definitions as proposed, revises some proposed terms, and includes newly defined terms that were not included in the proposed rule in order to clarify the final requirements of 5 CFR part 1321.

Accurate and Credible. One commenter noted that the proposed rule uses the terms accurate and credible in a common language way and suggested defining each of the terms in a way that is consistent with more formal statistical concepts like unbiased, consistent, robust, and precise. The proposed rule defined the term accurate in the same way the term is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3563(d). OMB believes that it is appropriate for the regulatory definition for accurate to be the same as the statutory definition to minimize confusion and is finalizing the definition as proposed. The proposed rule did not include a definition for the term credible, and OMB believes adding a definition is unnecessary at this time.

Confidential Statistical Data. The proposed rule defined confidential statistical data as “any information that is acquired for exclusively statistical purposes and under an obligation not to disclose the information to an unauthorized party.” One commenter recommended amending the definition of confidential statistical data by replacing the word “obligation” with the term “pledge” or defining the term “obligation” to ensure the term is inclusive of the term “pledge.” The commenter asserted without explanation that the term “obligation” is narrow and implies formality and thorough documentation. OMB disagrees with this assertion and considers “obligation” to broadly cover a wide range of methods of obligating the agency, including any law, “pledge,” interagency agreement, memorandum of understanding, contract, or other agreement or requirement to maintain confidentiality. This broader term is used in the definition of confidentiality under 44 U.S.C. 3563, as established in CIPSEA 2018. Notably, Congress used the term “obligation” rather than “pledge” to define confidentiality when it expanded CIPSEA to grant RSAUs greater access to data held by other agencies, and OMB believes the term is intended to include data acquired through means other than direct collection from respondents. At this time, OMB is not defining “obligation,” but may consider defining this term in the future.

Many agencies have confidential data that they use for statistical purposes which is not considered confidential statistical data under this regulation. For example, an evaluation office in an agency may conduct a survey of program participants as part of a program evaluation of an employment and training program for low-income adults. In doing so, the agency may ensure participants' confidentiality, and use those data solely for evidence-building  32 purposes to assess the effectiveness of the particular intervention. In this example, such data are collected for “research” purposes, which can include statistical activities but is not limited to exclusively statistical purposes. Because these types of activities are not limited to exclusively statistical purposes, the data are not considered confidential statistical data and are not subject to the requirements for confidential statistical data under this regulation.

Identifiable form. In the proposed rule, the term identifiable form is defined to mean “any representation of information that permits the identity of the individual or entity to whom the information applies to be reasonably inferred by either direct or indirect means,” as the term is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3561. One commenter highlighted the need for continued evolution in relation to how the term identifiable form is defined. This commenter suggested clarifying to what degree statistical agencies are obligated to protect against even partial reidentification in order to shed light on ways in which Federal statistical agencies can safely innovate with new methods as well as modernize data governance practices. Although the final rule finalizes the term identifiable form as proposed, OMB is of the view that addressing the scope of obligation regarding protecting against reidentification may be better aligned with other regulatory actions related to the Evidence Act and will take this comment under advisement for future rulemaking.

“Error”. One commenter stated that the proposed rule and preamble use the term “error” often in a statistical sense and suggested instead using the term “statistical error” and explaining the difference between a statistical error and a mistake in order to improve clarity for those not trained in statistics. The term “error” is used in the context of § 1321.6(a)(2)(iii) of this final rule and the related preamble discussion. OMB is of the view that the preamble discussion of the term “error” provides the right amount of context for readers to understand the intent and therefore is not including a new definition for the term in this final rule.

Statistical Laws. OMB received a comment on the definition for statistical laws. The proposed rule defines statistical laws to mean “44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter III and other laws pertaining to the protection of information collected for statistical purposes as designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,” as the term is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502. One commenter suggested adding language to reflect that OMB should document which laws are statistical laws. OMB has already documented some of the laws that are covered by the term statistical laws in OMB M-19-23  33 and agrees generally with the idea of documenting the statistical laws designated by the Director of OMB. However, the definition of statistical laws does not need to be updated to accomplish this proposal. OMB will consider ways to further document the statistical laws designated by the Director of OMB following finalization of this rule.

Statistical Products. OMB received a comment on the term statistical products, which the proposed rule defined to mean

This definition is consistent with Statistical Policy Directive No. 4. 34

The commenter suggested revising definition of the term statistical products to refer to “any information dissemination products, including public-use microdata files, that are published or otherwise made available for public use that describe, estimate, forecast, or analyze the characteristics of groups, customarily without identifying the persons, organizations, or individual data observations that comprise such groups. Statistical products include (but are not limited to) general purpose tabulations, analyses, projections, forecasts, or other statistical reports whether published by the RSAU or through some other mechanism. Statistical products include products of any form, including both printed and electronic forms.” OMB appreciates this comment but believes that it is not necessary to add an “including” statement, and the “or through some other mechanism” language would unnecessarily broaden the definition and may lead to further confusion. The final rule therefore defines statistical products as proposed.

Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit. In the proposed rule, the term Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit was defined as “an agency or organizational unit of the executive branch whose activities are predominantly the creation or collection, processing, dissemination, use, storage, and disposition of data for statistical purposes, as designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3562.” In keeping with the intent to align definitions with statute, where possible, the final rule modifies the definition of the term Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit, to align with the definition of “statistical agency or unit” in 44 U.S.C. 3561, which is “an agency or organizational unit of the executive branch whose activities are predominately the collection, compilation, processing, or analysis of information for statistical purposes, as designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under [44 U.S.C. 3562].”

Definitions for Organizational Units. To provide greater clarity about which parts of an agency are given responsibilities under this rule, the final rule adds definitions for component, core component, and parent agency head and adjusts the definition of parent agency. The final rule also replaces the term support function with support component.

Federal agencies consist of many different components including sub-agencies, offices, bureaus and units that support the mission of the agency. Some components, such as RSAUs, perform programmatic functions to achieve the agency's mission. Other components provide support to programmatic components by providing services and resources such as legal, human resources, communications, legislative affairs, budget, information technology (IT), or procurement. Further, other components provide non-programmatic agency-wide functions by advising and collaborating with other components to achieve the agency's mission, such as the Offices of the Chief Data Officer, the Evaluation Officer, the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, the Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer.

The final rule adds the term component to mean a sub-agency, office, unit, bureau, or other distinct entity when that entity is within an agency that contains an RSAU. OMB notes that an RSAU may be organizationally positioned within a component, such as a sub-agency that may contain additional components.

The proposed rule included a definition for the term support function to mean “a core function of an agency that supports the programmatic functions in achieving the agency's mission, including legal, human resources, communications, legislative affairs, budget, information technology (IT), or procurement functions.” In the final rule, the term support function is replaced with the term support component and is defined as “a component that supports the programmatic functions in achieving the agency's mission, including legal, human resources, communications, legislative affairs, budget, information technology (IT), or procurement functions, but excludes any component within an RSAU that provides these functions.”

A sub-agency component containing an RSAU may also contain additional components, including components that provide support such as legal, human resources, communications, legislative affairs, budget, information technology (IT), or procurement services to the RSAU and other components within the same sub-agency component. The change to the definition of support component clarifies that the requirements in this final rule are applicable regardless of where such component is positioned within an agency, except for when these functions are performed within the RSAU itself. The final rule definition for support component also removes the term “core function,” from the definition, which is separately defined in the newly defined term core component in the final rule.

For clarity, the final rule adds a definition for the term core component, which means “any support component [as defined above] and any component that performs any agency-wide function, such as the office of the Chief Data Officer, the Evaluation Officer, the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, the Chief Information Officer, the Chief FOIA Officer, and similar functions.”

The proposed rule included the definition of parent agency to mean “each agency and every organizational level within the agency, including sub-agencies, offices, components, or units within the agency, as well as the highest organizational level of such agency and excluding the Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit in any agency with more than one Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit, each Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit is considered a parent agency to any other Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit. This term is meant to apply to the full organizational structure.” Some commenters supported this proposed definition while other commenters recommended revisions. Commenters supporting the proposed definition noted its broad scope, which includes all levels of the organization including the highest level. Another commenter stated that the proposed definition of parent agency should be kept because the RSAU must have support from all components of the parent agency, including the head of the agency, regardless of where the RSAU sits in the parent agency or its direct line of reporting, to ensure that the RSAU has the appropriate authorities and resources to conduct its fundamental responsibilities.

In contrast, other commenters stated that the proposed definition for parent agency was confusing, a deterrent to the stated objectives, and that it should be redefined. Commenters who did not support the proposed definition interpreted the definition for parent agency, as proposed, more narrowly, describing it as only including the organization where the RSAU is immediately located within the agency's organizational structure and offered several reasons to provide a broader definition; such as the RSAU's duty to serve the data needs of the entire agency. These commenters noted that the lack of congruent priorities between the RSAU and the office, unit, or sub-agency in which it is positioned often leads to budget and staffing issues which in turn significantly hurt the ability of the RSAU to collect and disseminate needed and timely data for the agency.

OMB agrees with commenters both in support and not in support of the proposed definition that the definition of parent agency should be broad enough to not only include the component of the agency (such as an office, unit, or sub-agency) under which the RSAU is immediately positioned, but also the highest organizational level of the organization, as well as any component in between. OMB also believes it is important to include any office that has a direct and recurring relationship with the RSAU such as an office that provides a service or other support for the RSAU or any agency-wide office. However, OMB also believes it is important for clarity that the definition of parent agency does not extend to agencies or components that do not have similar direct and recurring relationships with an RSAU. Therefore, to provide clarity, the final rule revises the definition of parent agency to mean the following components in an agency that contains a Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit: the parent agency head, each organizational level within the agency under which the RSAU is positioned, and each core component.

Notably, there are some components in agencies that contain RSAUs that may have a direct working relationship with the RSAU but are not included in the definition of parent agency. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has a direct working relationship with units within the Employment and Training Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the Department of Labor (DOL). While not explicitly within the parent agency definition, these DOL units or components with a direct working relationship with BLS are still required to comply with this regulation within the context of that relationship. As discussed further below, the final rule adds § 1321.3(e), which requires that any other agency or component not within the definition of parent agency that has a direct working relationship with a RSAU must uphold the same responsibilities as a parent agency to the extent that a responsibility applies. In this example, this means that the DOL units with direct working relationships with BLS are effectively parent agencies to the extent that any parent agency responsibility applies in the context of that relationship.

Image 1 is a diagram of a possible structure to show the RSAU, parent agency, and component relationships. The RSAU is green (pattern with diagonal stripes), the parent agency is orange (pattern with dots), and components that are not an RSAU or within the definition of parent agency are blue (solid).

Chief Statistician of the United States. The proposed rule used different terms to refer to the Chief Statistician of the United States, including in some places including text to specify that it referred to the Chief Statistician of the United States “appointed under 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(7)” and in some places leaving this out. To promote clarity and consistency in the final rule, the final rule adds a definition of Chief Statistician of the United States, which is defined as the Chief Statistician appointed under 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(7). OMB uses this defined term throughout the final rule and has therefore removed the reference to “appointed under 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(7)” elsewhere in the regulatory text.

OMB finalizes all other definitions in § 1321.2 as they were proposed.

This section describes the scope of the rule; the impact on existing OMB guidance and policies, including that this rule supersedes any provisions within Statistical Policy Directives that conflict; and the parties responsible for carrying out this rule. OMB received one comment related to § 1321.3(d) of the proposed rule which directs a parent agency and RSAU to discuss and determine how to address deviations from the standard parent agency-level process to ensure compliance with 5 CFR part 1321 and other applicable laws and rules when appropriate or necessary. The commenter suggested that the final rule include language to clarify how such determinations will be resolved when the parent agency and RSAU disagree or cannot reach an agreement and suggest that in such cases the Chief Statistician of the United States be the mediator and be empowered to make the final determination. OMB appreciates this comment, but does not believe it is necessary to establish such a requirement as a general provision at this time. OMB will monitor these situations and consider future rulemaking if necessary. OMB expects the parent agency and RSAU will resolve any areas of disagreement within the hierarchy of the parent agency, in consultation with OMB on interpretation of the requirements in this rule, as needed, and further expects the head of the parent agency to retain responsibility for final determinations, when appropriate.

The final rule adds new § 1321.3(e) to ensure all agencies are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, which is necessary because of the revision to the parent agency definition. In the proposed rule, parent agency was defined more broadly than the final rule to cover all agencies regardless of whether the agency has a direct relationship with the RSAU. As revised, parent agency extends to certain parts of agencies that contain an RSAU, detailed above, and as such, to ensure that all agencies continue to be required to uphold their responsibility to enable, support, and facilitate RSAUs in upholding their fundamental responsibilities, OMB added this provision. The provision at § 1321.3(e) clarifies and reinforces that all agencies, if engaged with RSAUs, must uphold any applicable responsibilities of a parent agency. The final rule states that when an agency or component has a direct working relationship with an RSAU, the agency or component must uphold the responsibilities of a parent agency under this part to the extent that a responsibility applies. For example, when another agency or component is working with an RSAU to access confidential statistical data or to produce a new statistical product, that agency or component is responsible for complying with confidentiality requirements in § 1321.8 and deferring to or delegating responsibility to the RSAU with regard to decisions about statistical methodology and quality standards.

The final rule includes new § 1321.3(f) that provides that RSAUs should consult with the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States on any implementation challenge that may arise under this rule or other statistical laws. OMB has added this provision to clarify the working relationship between RSAUs and the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States.

OMB finalizes all other provisions of § 1321.3 as they were proposed.

This final rule defines the fundamental responsibilities of RSAUs at § 1321.4 as they are codified in 44 U.S.C. 3563(a)(1). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, these fundamental responsibilities are

(1) produce and disseminate relevant and timely statistical information;

(2) conduct credible and accurate statistical activities;

(3) conduct objective statistical activities; and

(4) protect the trust of information providers by ensuring the confidentiality and exclusive statistical use of their responses.

OMB proposed requirements at § 1321.4 to bolster RSAUs' ability to fulfill their fundamental responsibilities in order to protect and enhance public trust in RSAUs, and enhance public trust in their statistical products.

In general, OMB made several revisions to § 1321.4 to streamline and reorganize provisions to improve clarity and readability and address public comments. OMB finalizes the rule with an updated title for § 1321.4 to more accurately reflect the provisions within the section. OMB removed “bear the responsibilities” language from two provisions for clarity and readability.

OMB received overall support for § 1321.4 of the proposed rule. One commenter emphasized how this section of the proposed rule was fundamental to the rule itself and critically important, as it makes explicit the fact that RSAUs carry the responsibility of fulfilling the fundamental responsibilities, whereas parent agencies play a key role in supporting the ability of the RSAU to meet their responsibilities.

OMB also received specific comments on certain provisions in this section of the proposed rule. Two commenters noted that better education, communication, and collaboration requirements between RSAUs and parent agencies would promote better outcomes. One commenter noted that awareness of RSAU responsibilities and structures would complement the rule's emphasis on increased communication between RSAUs and their parent agencies. This commenter noted that communications conducted under the umbrella of the proposed rule have the potential to improve the utility of collected statistics and avoid the collection of irrelevant statistical data. The other commenter noted in particular the need to collaborate and coordinate with key evidence and data officials to preserve the vision of the Evidence Act. In response this comment, OMB is adding a new provision to the final rule at § 1321.4(b) which requires the heads of RSAUs and parent agencies to engage in regular communication and seek to educate each other. This communication should be targeted toward improving collaboration between the units in support of better meeting the responsibilities outlined in this part.

Two commenters noted the need to promote sustainability and innovation within the Federal statistical system through requirements on RSAUs to seek improvements to their collections and methods. In response to these public comments, the final rule also adds a new provision at § 1321.4(d) related to innovation and burden reduction. Section 1321.4(d)(1) requires each RSAU to continually seek to improve their statistical products and methods and engage in research to support innovation in data collection, analysis, and dissemination, among other statistical activities. In addition, another commenter suggested adding a requirement on RSAUs to minimize burden. In response, OMB finalizes at § 1321.4(d)(2) a requirement that each RSAU maximize the utility and minimize duplication of statistical products, as well as minimize the burden on their respondents, including by engaging with each other to identify opportunities to better meet these goals. The PRA requires all Federal agencies to maximize utility, minimize duplication, and minimize burden. This rule builds on this requirement and requires further engagement and consultation across RSAUs to better identify where duplication is occurring and to address it where found.

Several commenters strongly supported the requirements that were proposed at § 1321.4(b) related to websites and branding. Several commenters emphasized the importance of RSAU branding so that users know they are using trusted data provided and protected by strict legal protections of the Federal statistical system. One commenter expressed the importance of RSAUs to maintain independently branded websites as proposed at § 1321.4(b), in order to emphasize independence and engender public trust in that independence. This commenter cited the Bureau for Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis for being forerunners in this regard. Other commenters expressed the value of branding as it will allow for the identification of the responsible agency, and precludes the possibility that questions about a given statistic or statistical method would go to an entity that does not have professional knowledge and understanding of said statistic or method. These commenters and several others suggested that the requirement related to branding apply beyond websites and include all reports and products produced by the RSAU. OMB agrees and accepts these comments. OMB has revised the final rule at § 1321.4(e)(3) to require RSAUs to include clear branding with the name of the RSAU on all websites, statistical products, and press releases.

Several commenters suggested that RSAU branding as well as the development and maintenance of RSAU websites that was proposed at § 1321.4(b) be coordinated through the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States. One commenter provided several examples of ways OMB, through the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States, could support such efforts, such as a feeder or indexing website for all statistical agencies, by coordinating website design choices across agencies to make the system easier to use, or establishing interoperability standards or a single format for scientific citations. The commenter cited reduced costs and more coordination to show relationships between statistical agencies as reasons for implementing such efforts. Several commenters also identified a value in coordinated branding across RSAUs. One commenter stated that coordinated branding could strengthen the shared independence of RSAUs and therefore engender more public trust.

OMB generally agrees the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States has an important coordination role across the Federal statistical system. Indeed, in early 2023, StatsPolicy.gov was launched to provide a centralized location for finding information about Federal statistical system. However, at this time, OMB is of the view that RSAUs should maintain their own websites rather than having a centralized one that is managed by OMB because each RSAU has different policies, rules, and statutes to adhere to. Therefore, the final rule at § 1321.4(e)(2) continues to require that the RSAU maintain a website clearly branded with the name of the RSAU to provide information to providers, data users, and the general public. However, OMB does agree with commenters regarding the benefit in coordinated branding across the Federal statistical system and therefore the final rule at § 1321.6(e)(1) requires RSAUs to participate in the development of coordinated and complementary system-wide branding in collaboration with the Chief Statistician of the United States. This branding does not supplant the individual branding for each RSAU. This branding will complement individual branding to promote a more cohesive, seamless statistical system, in support of achieving the ICSP's vision to operate more seamlessly as a system. This branding should appear on relevant websites and products, including on StatsPolicy.gov.

The proposed rule at § 1321.4(b) required that each RSAU “maintain” a website. One commenter suggested the use of “have control of” rather than the word “maintain.” OMB appreciates this comment but does not think that it is necessary to make this change. The proposed rule at § 1321.4(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and this rule as finalized at § 1321.4(f)(1) through (3), provides detailed requirements to parent agencies that are intended to ensure that RSAUs maintain control of their websites. More specifically, as finalized at § 1321.4(f)(1) through (3), parent agencies are required to ensure that each RSAU has (1) sufficient resources to develop and maintain its website; (2) the necessary authority and autonomy to determine the content, functionality, appearance, and layout of its website; and (3) the capacity to directly update the content, functionality, appearance, and layout of the website without reliance on any parent agency official unless the official is directly assigned to the RSAU. OMB believes that this detail provides the adequate direction to both RSAUs and parent agencies regarding the RSAU's responsibilities and authorities regarding its website.

As discussed elsewhere in this rule, several non-substantive changes were made to this section of the rule to improve clarity and readability. The requirements of proposed § 1321.4(b) are reorganized into § 1321.4(e) and (f) to clarify the responsibilities for RSAUs and those of parent agencies regarding websites and branding.

At § 1321.4(c), the proposed rule outlined requirements related to the appropriate resources the heads of RSAUs should have with respect to their statistical products and statistical information. The final rule separates these requirements into two parts: (1) requirements related to budget formulation, which are finalized at § 1321.4(g) and (2) requirements related to RSAU capacity to carry out their fundamental responsibilities, which are finalized at § 1321.4(h). Both paragraphs include non-substantive changes for clarity and readability. The final rule streamlines language at § 1321.4(g) to clarify the importance of each RSAU having the appropriate resources to carry out the fundamental responsibilities. The provisions that were proposed at § 1321.4(c)(1) through (3) are being finalized at § 1321.4(g) and (h)(1) through (3) with changes described in this preamble to emphasize the role of the parent agency in the budget formulation process and to further encourage collaboration and communication between the RSAU and the parent agency.

OMB received several comments regarding proposed § 1321.4(c)(1) through (3). With regard to these provisions, one commenter supported RSAUs having their own budgets within their parent agency, and encouraged OMB also to require cross-cut budgets that demonstrate how statistical agencies work together and a Statistical Programs Budget to help communicate needed increases in the Chief Statistician's budget. Another commenter cautioned that the provision to require separate RSAU budgets may have an adverse effect by presenting unintended limitations on an RSAU's ability to leverage budget authorities effectively, which may limit the Federal statistical system's ability to grow and innovate and prevent smaller units from seeking recognition as a statistical agency or unit if they are unable to bear the additional administrative burden. Another commenter suggested promoting transparency and completeness in budget requests by requiring RSAUs to include funding sources such as set-asides in their budget requests and suggested further that if any agency's staffing level is determined through a separate agency account, the staffing levels and the requested changes for the RSAU be included as part of the budget request.

OMB appreciates these comments and has made changes to the final rule to clarify the requirements as follows: OMB finalizes § 1321.4(c)(1) of the proposed rule at § 1321.4(g)(1)-(2) of the final rule. Paragraph (g)(1) clarifies that, within the parent agency's budget submission, the RSAU's budget request should be presented separately. The RSAUs' budget requests should clearly present requests that would support cross-agency statistical priorities and investments, such as for implementation of the Standard Application Process required under 44 U.S.C. 3583 and related guidance. In the cases where RSAUs also receive funds through other sources, such as set-asides, such funds and their sources should be clearly stated with the budget request. Further, if an agency's staffing level is determined through a separate agency account, the staffing levels and the requested changes for the RSAU should be included as part of the budget request. In paragraph (g)(2), OMB clarifies the requirement for RSAUs to have an opportunity to participate in budget discussions with OMB by requiring the parent agency to provide the opportunity to the RSAU when such discussions specifically pertain to the RSAU's budget.

In the proposed rule, § 1321.4(c)(2) contained two provisions. The first required the parent agency, to the extent practicable, to make necessary resources available to the RSAU if the parent agency or the RSAU determines that the RSAU lacks sufficient resources. The second required the parent agency and the RSAU to notify OMB if the necessary resources could not be made available. One commenter cautioned that the responsibility of the parent agency to provide resources to RSAUs could impact the relationship between the parent agency and the RSAU. Another commenter suggested that objective criteria be developed to evaluate whether an agency has sufficient resources to carry out its fundamental responsibilities because the parent agency and the RSAU may have different views of what constitutes necessary resources. This commenter also stated that an RSAU should have a role in identifying if resources are sufficient.

OMB appreciates these comments and will consider working with RSAUs to understand whether objective criteria would be useful and effective. Further, OMB will monitor and assess whether any of the requirements of this rule impede agencies or units from seeking recognition as an RSAU. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, parent agencies must also allow sufficient autonomy and authority to the RSAU to determine how their positions are allocated among job series, how their staff are selected and trained, and how their budgets are deployed to ensure their ability to meet their four fundamental responsibilities.

In the final rule, to better clarify the process and to provide a better distinction between general discussions of capacity and specific discussions of budget formulation, § 1321.4(c)(2) of the proposed rule is finalized in the final rule at § 1321.4(g)(3) and (h)(1) and (2). Section 1321.4(g)(3) of the final rule requires the parent agency, in the annual budget formulation process, to provide a written explanation to OMB as part of the parent agency's budget submission when the budget request lacks sufficient resources for the RSAU to carry out its responsibilities under this final rule. In this written explanation, the parent agency must explain the programmatic implications of the requested funding levels and what tradeoffs would be necessary within the parent agency to make necessary resources available to the RSAU.

New paragraph (h)(1) finalizes the first sentence of § 1321.4(c)(2) of the proposed rule with changes to clarify that ensuring the RSAU has capacity to carry out this final rule is a joint responsibility of RSAUs and parent agencies and should be done in a collaborative manner. Therefore § 1321.4(h)(1) of the final rule states that if the parent agency and the RSAU identify a lack of capacity to meet the fundamental responsibilities ( e.g., through the agency Capacity Assessment required by Title I of the Evidence Act or other means), the parent agency and the RSAU should jointly develop options to address capacity needs and, to the extent practicable, make the necessary resources available. Efforts should include exploring all possible funding options and alternative solutions that could achieve these goals. The final rule at § 1321.4(h)(2) requires that if the RSAU finds, after all efforts with the parent agency are exhausted, that it still does not have the necessary capacity to carry out its responsibilities under this final rule, the head of the RSAU should submit to the Chief Statistician of the United States and the relevant Resource Management Office in OMB a written explanation of the expected capacity deficit, including an estimate of the amount of resources, labor, or other support needed to address the capacity deficit and a detailed description of the anticipated impact of the current capacity.

The proposed rule at § 1321.4(c)(3) is finalized largely as proposed in the final rule at § 1321.4(h)(3), with updates to the last sentence of paragraph (h)(3)(v) to reflect the updated language in § 1321.4(g) of the final rule.

The proposed rule at § 1321.4(c)(4) presented two options to promote collaboration between RSAUs and parent agencies to establish joint requirements for services to be shared across RSAUs and other agencies (whether within the same organization or across organizations), hereinafter referred to as “shared services.” As discussed in the proposed rule, OMB recognizes the value of shared services and the efficiencies and cost savings they can generate. The proposed rule requested comments on two methods of achieving this collaboration between RSAUs and parent agencies. Under Option A in the proposed rule, each parent agency would be required to enter into a written agreement with an RSAU when providing any service to the RSAU. Under Option B, parent agency officials are required to consult the RSAU prior to making or renewing an award for services or software that would directly affect the RSAU and are only required to enter into a written agreement if requested by the head of the RSAU or the head of the support component.

The majority of commenters supported option B, which this final rule adopts at § 1321.4(h)(4). Commenters stated that they preferred option B because it would clarify the role of the parent agency in providing sufficient resources or services and because of the strength it provides to the heads of RSAUs, which is critical to promoting trust in the agency. One commenter recommended that the agreements between RSAUs and parent agencies be reviewed and re-signed on a regular basis, such as every five years, to ensure necessary updated and continues compliance with such agreements. For the reasons outlined in the preamble to the proposed rule, OMB is finalizing option B. The provisions proposed at § 1321.4(d) are being finalized at § 1321.4(i) as proposed. One commenter provided suggested revisions to three aspects of this language. In particular, the commenter suggested changing “may” to “shall” in proposed § 1321.4(d)(1), adding “and the Chief Statistician of the United States” to the end of proposed § 1321.4(d)(3), and removing “may” from proposed § 1321.4(d)(4)(ii). OMB appreciates these suggestions but does not accept them. OMB does not believe it is appropriate to require delegation in every instance but does believe it is important that the option for delegation exist. In addition, the Chief Statistician of the United States does not need to know every delegation determination made by the RSAU or be consulted in every instance. The final rule requires that RSAUs have the appropriate decision-making authority within their agencies for the specified activities. (Appropriate is described further in the relevant key provisions above for the RSAU.) One of the most challenging institutional factors affecting the fundamental responsibilities are overlapping or unclear lines of authority between the heads of RSAUs and other parent agency officials with authorities that directly affect the fundamental responsibilities, such as Chief Data Officers, Evaluation Officers, Chief Information Officers, Senior Agency Officials for Privacy, and others. Similarly, statistical activities can at times directly affect the responsibilities of these other senior officials. Often these overlapping authorities originate in statute and adjudicating them can be challenging. This rule identifies the decisions and authorities that are key to the ability of an RSAU to uphold its fundamental responsibilities and requires either delegation to or consultation with the head of the RSAU.

The final rule finalizes at § 1321.4(c) the provisions regarding the development and revision of policies that were proposed at § 1321.4(e) in the proposed rule. OMB proposed that the revision of policies happen within 1 year of the effective date of the rule and offered 2 years as a regulatory alternative. OMB did not receive comments on the effective date for the revision of policies, and as such, maintains the 1-year timeline. OMB did not receive any comments on this section of the rule. OMB added text to clarify that where the rule requires that the parent agency revise existing rules, policies, procedures, and organizational structures that impede an RSAU's ability to comply with this regulation, the parent agency must also undertake the actions necessary to be able to comply with the rule. This is especially important where this rule includes a mandate that is required unless otherwise prohibited by statute, such as in §§ 1321.4(i), 1321.6(b)(1), 1321.7(b)(2), and 1321.8(b)(1), where the agency may need to take steps to comply with any Administrative Procedure Act requirements in carrying out the requirements under this rule.

Proposed § 1321.4(e) directs parent agencies to review their rules, policies, and practices, and revise any that impede an RSAU's ability to meet its statutory responsibilities because agency rules, policies, and practices are so central to accomplishing the purpose of 44 U.S.C. 3563(b). The existing rules, policies, and practices of the parent agency can affect an RSAU's ability to meet its fundamental responsibilities in several ways. Rules, policies, and practices that require review and approval from officials external to the RSAU for their statistical products, statistical press releases, website appearance and content, and other communications to external stakeholders such as the press and the Congress specifically addressing statistical products or statistical press releases can create perceived and actual risk of interference with the RSAU. Actual or perceived undue influence harms the RSAU and the parent agency, undermining trust and support for both. Parent agencies must assess their rules, policies, and practices and revise any that do not enable, support, and facilitate the ability of their RSAU to meet their fundamental responsibilities. If disagreements arise between RSAU and the parent agency as to the revision of any parent agency rule, policy, or practice, the head of the RSAU and the relevant officials at the parent agency may contact OMB through the Administrator of OIRA to discuss and resolve.

OMB is finalizing at § 1321.4(j) in the final rule the provisions related to the delegation of duties that were proposed at § 1321.4(f) in the proposed rule, with some non-substantive changes for clarity and consistency with existing statutory authority. Commenters were in strong support of the provisions which require OMB to conduct its coordination of Federal information policy in a manner consistent with the Evidence Act and this rule and to delegate the management of OMB's statistical functions to the Chief Statistician. The policy embodied in the Evidence Act's requirement under 44 U.S.C. 3563(b) for the head of each agency to enable, support, and facilitate RSAUs in carrying out their fundamental responsibilities extends to OMB. Notably, OMB has a variety of authorities that directly affect the ability of RSAUs to meet their responsibilities. OMB will exercise those authorities in a manner consistent with the Evidence Act requirements and this final rule.

The proposed rule at § 1321.4(f)(2) required OMB to delegate the authority to perform the functions described in 44 U.S.C. 3504(e). The purpose of that provision was to ensure that the Chief Statistician of the United States, a position that was created to coordinate and oversee the Federal statistical system, had the authority to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal statistical system and to ensure OMB policies supported the objectivity and accuracy of statistical products generated by RSAUs. OMB is finalizing the rule with a change to this provision to clarify and reaffirm the existing authority of the Chief Statistician of the United States to perform the statistical policy coordination under section 3504(e).

Section 3504(e)(7) specifies that the Chief Statistician of the United States must be “a trained and experienced professional statistician” and confers on the Chief Statistician the authority “to carry out the functions described in” section 3504(e), including the development and implementation of governmentwide policies, principles, standards, and guidelines concerning statistical collection procedures and methods, statistical data classification, statistical information presentation and dissemination, timely release of statistical data, and such statistical data sources as may be required for the administration of Federal programs. Section 3504(e)(7) ensures that the Chief Statistician of the United States has the necessary authority within OMB to carry out these functions in an objective, impartial, and timely manner that only takes into account statistical considerations, and without interference. As such, the Chief Statistician of the United States already has the authority the proposed rule was requiring OMB to delegate and the delegation in the proposed rule was unnecessary and would not have provided any additional authority.

As finalized, § 1321.4(j) does not diminish OMB's coordination and oversight authorities, rather it ensures that the specified authorities are exercised without regard to any particular political or program impacts, as the Chief Statistician of the United States is statutorily required to ensure objectivity and impartiality of information collected for statistical purposes. OMB's role is also important to promote comparability of statistics across the Federal Government, as well as to promote high quality statistics in support of informed decision making by both public and private statistical data users. The final rule supports that role by retaining the requirement for the responsibilities pertaining to the approval of information collections submitted by RSAUs be delegated to the Chief Statistician of the United States. In recognition of the existing statutory delegation of such responsibility to the Administrator of OIRA, the final rule requires that the Administrator delegate the responsibilities pertaining to the approval of information collections, rather than the Director of OMB. The final rule also retains the requirement for the Director of OMB to delegate the authority to carry out the responsibilities under subchapter III of chapter 35 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code to the Chief Statistician of the United States. The proposed rule also required the Director of OMB to delegate responsibilities under 44 U.S.C. 3562. However, section 3562 is part of subchapter III of chapter 35 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code, which means the separate delegation of authority is unnecessary. That provision has therefore been removed only to improve the clarity of the final rule and not as a substantive change from the proposed rule.

The first fundamental responsibility of RSAUs is to produce and disseminate relevant and timely statistical information. This responsibility recognizes the high value of some statistical products. The Evidence Act entrusts RSAUs with the responsibility of making judgments about balancing the value of their statistical products against their costs, burden, and risk, which can change over time. Congress maintained the high expectations about RSAUs' expertise in and commitment to producing the most relevant statistics by placing this responsibility on RSAUs.

One commenter suggested changes to proposed § 1321.5(a) to “strengthen the position of the RSAUs to meet their responsibilities without interference” and suggested modifying the language in § 1321.5(a) to speak to the responsibilities of the parent agency. OMB agrees that RSAUs must be able to determine what statistical products to disseminate without interference from parent agencies. OMB believes this is addressed by § 1321.5(b)(1) in the final rule, which speaks to the responsibilities of parent agencies with regard to the review of statistical products prior to release. In addition, OMB notes that OMB Statistical Policy Directive Nos. 3 and 4 remain in place and provide guidance on such policies. 35 Thus, the final rule does not include any changes in response to this comment.

Multiple commenters noted support for § 1321.5(b)(1)(i), which requires consultation with parent agency officials to assess and seek improvements to the relevance of statistical products, and suggested that the consultation expand beyond the parent agency to include Congress, other parts of the Executive Branch, and the Judicial branch. One commenter suggested that each agency establish a Federal Advisory Committee. OMB agrees broader consultation would be beneficial but believes only the parent agency consultation should be required under all circumstances. OMB believes that other entities, such as State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments should also be consulted, as deemed necessary by the head of the RSAU. OMB does not agree with prescribing the approach for such consultation, for example through a Federal Advisory Committee. As such, OMB has revised § 1321.5(b)(1)(ii) to require consultation, as the head of the RSAU determines is appropriate, with other data users, including Congress, State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments, and other parts of the Executive Branch without explicitly prescribing the approach for such consultation. OMB does not enumerate all of the possible entities with which RSAUs could consult and expects that RSAUs will include other entities in consultation as appropriate for their needs.

Multiple comments discussed the publication schedule and its importance for transparency. One commenter suggested adding a provision for the parent agency not to interfere with the release dates or the content of those releases. Another commenter suggested that, after the schedule has been published, any change to the schedule should be communicated to the Chief Statistician of the United States and publicly announced and be accompanied by a detailed explanation for such change. OMB appreciates this input and has added a requirement at § 1321.5(d)(1)(v) to notify the Chief Statistician of the United States of any changes to the schedule for any regular and recurring statistical products. OMB believes that this final rule, in conjunction with existing OMB Statistical Policy Directive Nos. 3 and 4, sufficiently addresses the other concerns raised by commenters.

OMB also made other edits to this provision in the final rule for clarity and streamlining. In particular, OMB revised proposed § 1321.5(d)(1)(i) to combine the provision from proposed § 1321.5(d)(1)(ii) into § 1321.5(d)(1)(i). In addition, OMB added “on the schedule required under paragraph (d)(1)(i)” to proposed § 1321.5(d)(1)(ii) to clarify specifically where RSAUs publish the release dates and finalized this at § 1321.5(d)(1)(ii). Finally, OMB revised proposed § 1321.5(d)(1)(iv) to replace “office” with “point of contact” to account for smaller agencies and finalized this provision at § 1321.5(d)(1)(iii).

Other comments addressed the alignment of the provisions related to relevance and timeliness in this rule with other data-related policies, including customer experience policies, learning agendas, and user experience testing policy, which are outside the scope of the fundamental responsibilities. OMB reminds agencies that they must ensure proper adherence to all relevant statutes, rules, policies, and guidance and encourages agencies to review all relevant requirements in conjunction with this final rule to ensure alignment, as applicable. OMB did not incorporate any requirements in this rule that were not directly tied to the fundamental responsibilities of RSAUs. As such, OMB has not made modifications to the rule based on this set of comments.

Finally, one comment addressed the accessibility of data and recommended that OMB ensure “inclusivity for diverse abilities.” OMB believes it is important to ensure data are accessible to all, with appropriate safeguards to maintain protection of confidential statistical data and adherence to relevant statutes, rules, policies, and guidance. For example, it is important to ensure that any means of accessing statistical data, such as through systems, platforms, software, or other means, comply with requirements for data protection and security to prevent inappropriate or inadvertent access to confidential statistical data. OMB has not modified any provisions in response to this comment, but continues to encourage agencies to work with stakeholders to understand their needs for access and address them to the extent practicable.

OMB finalizes all other provisions of § 1321.5 as they were proposed.

The second fundamental responsibility of RSAUs is to conduct credible and accurate statistical activities. Establishing credibility about the accuracy of the products produced and the scientifically rigorous processes employed to create them is fundamental to the role of a trusted provider of evidence. The more accurate evidence is, the greater value it has to the decision maker who uses it.

Any statistical product may contain some level of inaccuracy, and statistics always measure underlying concepts or conditions with varying levels of uncertainty. To confidently act on the evidence, data users need to trust that the accuracy of the statistical products is communicated in a forthright, explicit, and transparent manner. In addition, providing public documentation about the methodologies and processes used by the RSAU in developing the statistical product promotes credibility in its methods and processes. Section 1321.6 describes several actions that RSAUs must take to build and protect their credibility so that they can fill this role effectively.

OMB modified some provisions in § 1321.6 in response to public comments. One comment stated general support for this section, specifically highlighting the inclusion of proposed § 1321.6(b)(1) and suggested that additional guidance “would help clarify these responsibilities and address them from the vantage of trust.” OMB appreciates the comment and will consider it in the context of developing future policies.

One comment provided specific edits to proposed provisions § 1321.6(b)(3) and (4) to “strengthen the position of the RSAUs to meet their responsibilities without interference.” Specifically, this commenter suggested that OMB revise § 1321.6(b)(3) to read as follows:

OMB accepts some of the editorial updates suggested but does not accept the proposed update from “permit” to “delegate” as suggested because OMB does not believe delegation is appropriate or necessary in this situation.

The commenter further suggested the following revision to § 1321.6(b)(4):

OMB does not accept the proposed addition of “review or” before “approval from outside of the Recognized Statistical Agency or Unit” in proposed § 1321.6(b)(4) because there are times when it is appropriate for a review to occur, such as reviews that are required by law or to verify non-statistical issues are not present in the materials.

Another comment suggested clarifying what “appropriate behavior would be to more clearly denote what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior” in the context of a “potential for discrimination against staff whose professional interests may not align with that of those of their respective agencies.” Based on this comment, OMB added a new provision § 1321.6(a)(5) to the final rule to indicate that RSAUs should determine the appropriateness of affording their staff professional autonomy and how this will be achieved, while adhering to the requirements of any applicable statutes. This provision seeks to incorporate more clearly the need for staff at RSAUs to be able to engage in professional activities, while making sure there is still accountability for staff time and resources.

In addition to modifications in response to comment discussed above, OMB made a clarifying edit to § 1321.6(a)(1)(iii) to specify that that the RSAU must assess the data quality for the statistical purposes of the RSAU and not for other purposes for which the data may be used by other components. This provision requires that the RSAU work with the CDO and Evaluation Officer to develop policies for such assessment of data that originates from outside of the RSAU to ensure the RSAU is properly assessing the data quality for the RSAU's statistical purposes. Also, OMB revised the list of terms in § 1321.6(a)(2)(i) to align more closely with the terms outlined in Statistical Policy Directive No. 1 for clarity. In addition, OMB revised § 1321.6(b)(4) to add “and that do not contain legally privileged information” for clarity. OMB also revised proposed § 1321.6(b)(4)(i) introductory text and (b)(4)(i)(A) and (B) into final § 1321.6(b)(4)(i) and (ii) for clarity and streamlining while covering the same concepts. Finally, OMB moved proposed § 1321.6(b)(4)(ii) to § 1321.6(a)(5)(ii) in the final rule to appropriately align the requirement with the other RSAU requirements in § 1321.6(a).

OMB finalizes all other provisions of § 1321.6 as they were proposed.

The third fundamental responsibility of RSAU is to conduct objective and impartial statistical activities. Impartial statistics are core to the concept of evidence-based policymaking, which is based on the fundamental practice of using facts to guide policies. To support rigorous decision-making actions, data users need to be able trust that statistical outputs are transparent and policy-neutral; therefore, this final rule includes requirements to bolster an RSAU's ability to be an impartial source of information. OMB proposed to establish responsibilities regarding objectivity for RSAUs at § 1312.7(a) and for parent agencies at § 1312.7(b). The proposed rule adopted several provisions related to objectivity that RSAUs and parent agencies are already following through their adherence to Statistical Policy Directive No. 1. After considering the public comments, OMB is finalizing § 1321.7 largely as proposed.

OMB made some general revisions to this section to streamline provisions to improve clarity and readability and also made some targeted revisions to address public comments. OMB revised § 1321.7(a)(4) to move the last phrase of the provision “in accordance with this section and applicable law and policy” to the beginning of the provision for clarity. OMB also added “legally privileged information” to the list of nonstatistical matters in § 1321.7(b)(1) that a reviewer outside RSAU may review and added to the end of the provision “or matters affecting current or future litigation” for clarity. OMB made changes to § 1321.7(b)(4) to remove the requirements related to the RSAU having the necessary resources because this requirement is addressed in section § 1321.4 of this final rule. Changes were also made to clarify that the resources of the RSAU are managed by the RSAU in accordance with their fundamental responsibilities as described in this final rule. OMB identified that § 1321.7(b)(4)(ii) included some text on content, functionality, appearance, and layout of the RSAU website duplicative of § 1321.4 and revised § 1321.7(b)(4)(ii) to remove the duplicative text while retaining the remainder of the provision.

OMB received a few comments regarding this section of the proposed rule. One commenter suggested adding “including to the Parent Agency” after “data users” in proposed § 1321.7(a)(2)(ii). OMB believes this call out is unnecessary and did not change the provision in the final rule. One commenter suggested several line edits to different provisions in this section. One edit suggested that § 1321.7(b)(1) add “review or” in front of “clearance.” OMB did not accept this suggestion because some level of review may be necessary to verify the statistical products do not contain nonstatistical aspects such as policy, budget, or management. Another commenter suggested adding “and for reporting on the results of those activities” to the end of the first sentence of proposed § 1321.7(b)(2). OMB accepted this suggestion in the final rule, but updated the language to use defined terms from this rule, so the addition is “and for disseminating statistical products.” Another comment suggested adding “, including its archiving” to the end of proposed § 1321.7(b)(5)(i). OMB accepted this addition in the final rule with a minor modification to read, “The governance of its data, including the archiving of its data.” One commenter suggested that RSAUs make their statistical data available on an equitable basis and that they commit to making data as accessible as possible to members of historically underserved communities. OMB acknowledges that it is important for RSAUs to continue working toward improving equitable data access but has not made any changes to the rule based on this comment because OMB believes the concepts are covered under other provisions of this rule.

Two other commenters noted their support for this section and one of those strongly encouraged retaining the language in § 1321.7(b) in particular. OMB appreciates these comments.

OMB finalizes all other provisions of § 1321.7 as they were proposed.

The fourth fundamental responsibility of RSAUs is to protect the trust of information providers by ensuring the confidentiality and exclusive statistical use of their data. Data providers rely upon RSAUs to honor their commitments and statutory requirements to protect the confidentiality of data providers' information and to ensure that the confidential statistical data are used exclusively for statistical purposes.

The Federal statistical system is largely dependent on the willingness of individuals; businesses; and Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments to provide and allow their data to be used for statistical purposes. For example, even the perception that agencies responsible for regulating industries have unauthorized access to data provided to RSAUs may have a significant impact on survey response rates or on the willingness of a private sector entity (such as a private data warehouse) to enter into a contract to provide data in bulk to an RSAU and thereby possibly degrade data quality for those RSAUs and trust from the public. Statistical Policy Directive No. 1 highlights the importance of protecting the confidentiality of responses because it “reduces public confusion, uncertainty, and concern about the treatment and use of reported information” and articulates the importance of the “organizational climate” in which RSAUs do their work, which builds and sustains the trust of the data providers. 36

In addition to giving data providers confidence that their confidential statistical data will be protected, these protections also give the general public confidence that RSAUs will be responsible stewards of the large amounts of sensitive information with which they are entrusted. RSAUs must have the authority to determine the tools, practices, and procedures employed to ensure the effective security, including physical and logical security, of confidential statistical data, as well as to determine how best to protect the confidentiality of, and provide appropriate access to, that data. Such determinations include whether personnel such as economists, statisticians, data scientists, IT specialists, and subject matter experts who access confidential statistical data must be directly assigned to the RSAU that controls the data.

OMB finalizes § 1321.8 with revisions to use defined terms for clarity. OMB streamlined provisions in § 1321.8(a)(1) and (2) and (c) to remove duplication and for clarity. OMB finalizes § 1321.8(a)(4)(i), which requires notifying respondents of the intended use, potential future use, relevance, and confidentiality protections of a collection of information by an RSAU, with clarifying language about the collections referenced being sponsored by RSAUs and not by other parts of the agency, as well as to conform to requirements for references from the Office of the Federal Register. OMB notes that the notification required under § 1321.8(a)(4)(i) may overlap with other notification requirements and RSAUs may consolidate this notification with any other notification to the extent that the combined notification is clear and easy to understand by the average respondent. OMB notes that in § 1321.8(b)(3), which establishes requirements for a parent agency's Senior Agency Official for Privacy in relation to an RSAU, the term breaches refers to breaches of personally identifiable information and should be read as consistent with the definition of breach in OMB M-17-12 or subsequent OMB guidance. 37 OMB added a new provision at § 1321.8(b)(4) to ensure that the agency Chief FOIA Officer coordinates with the RSAU to ensure appropriate application of exemptions in response to Freedom of Information Act requests pertaining to RSAU records. This was added to parallel the requirement of RSAUs in § 1321.8(a)(2)(i).

OMB also revised § 1321.8(c) to include “and exclusive statistical use” in two places for greater consistency with CIPSEA 2018. OMB revised § 1321.8(c)(3) to use the defined term “parent agency” and clarify that “anyone else” is included in the provision to clarify that no one other than the RSAU head would have the authority to grant access to confidential statistical data.

In addition, OMB considered the comments received on § 1321.8. One commenter suggested adding language to encourage collaboration among RSAUs so that confidentiality requirements would not be such a high barrier for purposes of improving statistics. OMB appreciates this input and is not making any changes to the final rule but will consider this in the context of forthcoming rules. Another commenter suggested specifying that the RSAU will independently (not in collaboration with the parent agency) assure confidentiality protection. OMB agrees and believes the proposed rule provides for such autonomy in this work and has not made any updates to this final rule in response. Another suggestion was to delete the phrase “in collaboration with the relevant parent agency” from proposed § 1321.8(a)(2)(iv). OMB agrees that the authority and determination of agent status should be left solely to the RSAU head. As part of streamlining to remove duplication across § 1321.8, OMB removed proposed § 1321.8(a)(2)(iv) and keeps provisions in § 1321.8(c) that speak to the determination of agency status.

Another commenter urged that language from § 1321.8(b)(1), “which establishes that statistical agencies have the sole authority to provide access to confidential statistical data,” and § 1321.8(c), “which provides a process for the head of a statistical agency to protect confidential statistical data,” be retained as proposed. This commenter also noted that language in § 1321.8(c)(4) “will be helpful in clarifying that the role that statistical agencies have to analyze disclosure risk in response to requests for statistical data for purposes of evidence-based policymaking in education.” This commenter stated that these provisions would be helpful in maintaining and even expanding access to restricted data for research and research-based policy purposes by data users. OMB appreciates this input and has retained the substance of the proposed provisions with some revisions for clarity and reorganization. Another commenter had two suggestions for this section. One suggestion was to add a new provision that would address the idea of a risk-utility framework for confidentiality protection. OMB agrees this is an important issue and will consider this in the context of forthcoming rules.

OMB finalizes all other provisions of § 1321.8 as they were proposed.

This final rule seeks to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of RSAUs, as well as the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes. History has shown that the ability of Federal agencies to meet the requirements and responsibilities described in the previous sections will depend on the creation of institutional processes that result in meaningful incentives for compliance. Accordingly, the proposed rule requested comments on three options to address the need for a review of agency compliance with this rule:

Option A: ICSP Review. This option would direct the ICSP to form a Peer Review Committee, which would assess each RSAU and its parent agency for compliance with this rule.

Option B: Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) Review. This option would direct CIGIE to form a statistical audit committee, which would designate certain Inspectors General (IGs) as statistical auditors and provide those statistical auditors with support, education, and resources. Each RSAU and its parent agency would be audited for compliance with this rule.

Option C: Inspector General Review. This option would direct each IG of a parent agency containing an RSAU to conduct audits for compliance with this rule.

Nine commenters provided feedback on this section establishing a compliance review process. Some commenters disfavored option A, raising concerns about a potential bias or lack of independence if the ICSP were to conduct the compliance review. Other commenters disfavored option C, expressing concern about the potential for IGs to be inconsistent across the agencies or that some IGs may lack familiarity with the laws and practices of the statistical agencies.

The majority of commenters recommended option B, which would require CIGIE to establish a statistical audit committee to conduct the review. Others expressed a preference for option A, which required the ICSP to conduct the review. Of those supporting option A, some commenters recommended that the ICSP be given authority to select an outside entity to alleviate the concern of potential bias. Other commenters encouraged OMB to consider another entity entirely, such as the Government Accountability Office or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or for OMB to conduct the reviews.

Considering these comments and available resources, and after consultation with CIGIE, OMB is finalizing a version that combines options B and C. Since 1978, IGs have been conducting audits and reviews of agencies to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs. IGs are uniquely situated to provide an objective and independent review of agency operations. Under § 1321.9(a) of this final rule, each IG of a parent agency must conduct a review to determine whether the parent agency and the RSAU are in compliance with this rule and whether the RSAU has sufficient resources to carry out the fundamental responsibilities.

Importantly, the IG compliance review required under this final rule should be conducted in compliance with and in the spirit of this final rule. This final rule is intended to ensure the autonomy of RSAUs and ensure sufficient functional separation. As such, where this final rule requires RSAUs to make decisions or requires the parent agency to delegate or ensure the RSAU has sufficient authority to make decisions, for the RSAU and parent agency to be in compliance with this rule, the RSAU would need the authority to make the relevant decisions. The compliance review required in this final rule would not cover evaluating the decision itself, as the purpose of the policy is to give the RSAU autonomy in those decisions specified in this rule.

For example, under § 1321.6 of this final rule, an RSAU is required to determine appropriate methods for its statistical activities, and the parent agency is responsible both for ensuring the RSAU has autonomy to maintain its own quality standards and for delegating the responsibility to make determinations about quality to the RSAU. This will help to ensure that the RSAU has autonomy to determine the methods for conducting statistical activities and the quality of its statistical products. The compliance review required to be conducted by IGs under this final rule would not extend to review of the quality of the RSAU's statistical products or methodology. However, IGs should be reviewing publicly provided documentation of statistical products or methodology to determine whether the RSAU is adequately meeting the requirements for public documentation in § 1321.6(a)(2).

Similarly, this rule ensures that an RSAU has the sole authority to provide access to its confidential statistical data, so that the RSAU can protect the confidentiality and ensure the exclusive statistical use of its confidential statistical data. Section 1321.8(c) provides a detailed policy regarding how a parent agency or other component may request access to confidential statistical data from the RSAU. Because each of the IGs conducting a compliance review under this rule is a component of an agency that contains an RSAU, the IGs are also responsible for complying with the requirements for components under § 1321.8(c) when accessing confidential statistical data.

Consistent with existing law and this final rule, IGs are not authorized to access confidential statistical data or related information systems unless such access is in compliance with this final rule, relevant statistical laws, and any other applicable statutes. IGs have existing statutory authority to access all necessary information and materials in a timely manner to perform their duties. However, to gain access to confidential statistical data, IGs must follow the requirements of § 1321.8(c) to ensure the proper use and protection of confidential statistical data. OMB expects that both the IGs and the RSAUs will comply with the relevant legal requirements of both the Inspectors General Act  38 and CIPSEA 2018. OMB expects the IGs to comply with § 1321.8(c) in a timely manner and for the RSAUs to provide the necessary information in a timely manner. Further, OMB expects the IGs, RSAUs, and parent agencies to consult with the Chief Statistician of the United States as necessary, and as authorized by this rule, to ensure adequate, timely, and secure access to information necessary for IGs to conduct compliance reviews or to meet any other requirements under this regulation. However, given the scope of the compliance review under this rule, OMB does not anticipate that the compliance reviews will require that IGs have regular access to confidential statistical data.

OMB agrees with commenters who emphasized the importance of consistency in compliance reviews across agencies. To further consistency and statistical expertise among IGs, the final rule at § 1321.9(e) requires CIGIE to promulgate guidance for the IGs, to promote consistent reviews and consistent formatting. 39 CIGIE must also establish a working group for the relevant IGs to develop expertise in statistical laws and processes necessary to ensure the integrity of statistical agencies. Given the unique nature of statistical laws and processes, the working group and individual IGs must regularly consult with the Chief Statistician of the United States on the appropriate interpretation and application of statistical laws and practices.

Under the proposed rule, the compliance review would occur not less frequently than once every three years. One commenter noted that compliance with this rule may take some effort and suggested giving a five-year grace period before starting the compliance review. OMB agrees that the compliance review should start after the agencies have had an opportunity to come into compliance with this rule but does not believe that all agencies need five years to come into compliance. The final rule at § 1321.9(b)(1) requires each parent agency and RSAU to undergo a review of compliance with this final rule by the agency's IG at least once every three years, beginning no sooner than two years after issuance of this final rule. Under this framework, every agency gets at least a two-year grace period before the IG conducts the first compliance review. OMB notes that some agencies may have as much as five years before the first compliance review, depending on how the IG schedules this work. This two-year grace period also affords the IG community time to acquaint themselves better with the statistical community and statistical laws, as well as to work on a consistent framework by which to do the compliance review.

As described in the proposed rule, the final rule at § 1321.9(b)(2) establishes a process for an off-schedule compliance review. Under the final rule, the ICSP may request an off-schedule review of an RSAU and parent agency if the ICSP has reason to believe there is a substantial change in circumstances regarding compliance with this part. The ICSP must submit a written request for a compliance review with a detailed explanation to the IG of the parent agency for which the review is requested. The IG must review any requests from the ICSP, determine whether a review is appropriate, and provide a written response to the ICSP within 30 days of receiving such request.

Under this final rule at § 1321.9(c), OMB is finalizing the proposed requirement that the IG must provide a compliance report on the determinations made under this section to the head of the agency, the head of the RSAU, the Chief Statistician of the United States, and relevant congressional committees. For purposes of this review, the head of the RSAU is considered the responsible official for purposes of the compliance review and must be given the opportunity to review and respond to the review's results.

Further, OMB is finalizing parts of the proposed rule that establish a role for the Chief Statistician of the United States related to compliance reviews. Under this final rule at § 1321.9(d), the Chief Statistician of the United States will engage with each RSAU and parent agency to address deficiencies identified in a compliance report; include a list of findings or recommendations and the status of the RSAU and parent agency in addressing each finding or recommendation on StatsPolicy.gov; make available to CIGIE appropriate educational materials, training, or other relevant resources regarding statistical laws and practices; and include standards for remedial actions for an RSAU for persistent failures to comply with this final rule in the guidance to implement the RSAU designation process required under 44 U.S.C. 3562(a).

OMB finalizes all other provisions of § 1321.9 as they were proposed.

The final rule establishes a robust role for CIGIE and the Chief Statistician of the United States to provide education to IGs on the Federal statistical system and statistical laws, to provide guidance to enable consistency across IGs in conducting compliance reviews, and to support the development of the community of IGs responsible for evaluating compliance with this rule and statistical laws. This approach will help ensure compliance reviews are conducted by an independent and unbiased entity, the agency's IG, while also addressing the concern about any potential lack of IG experience with the statistical community and statistical laws.

This final rule applies to Federal agencies, and does not impose requirements on individuals, businesses, associations, organizations, or other private sector entities. The purpose of this final rule is largely to conform existing rules, policies, and practices to the requirements in the Evidence Act, in particular the codification of the requirement for RSAUs to meet the fundamental responsibilities described herein and for all agencies to enable, support, and facilitate RSAUs in meeting their fundamental responsibilities. OMB is exercising some discretion in promulgating this final rule, but any regulatory decisions will have a marginal impact on transfers, costs, and benefits, and this final rule includes only such provisions as OMB deems necessary to implement the statutory requirements of the Evidence Act. This rule furthers OMB's compliance with its obligations under the Evidence Act to promulgate rules implementing new statutory provisions and guides Federal agencies in effectuating their own obligations under the Evidence Act.

OMB did not receive comments on the estimated costs of this rule, but did receive comments on the benefits of this rule. OMB has updated the estimated costs of this rule to reflect the updates made to the definition of parent agency, as well as to adjust costs for review to reflect new calendar year pay and to adjust the review and revision hours for parent agencies to more accurately reflect the duration of time to do the work. The benefits section of this rule provides more information on the comments received for that section.

This final rule has specific requirements for RSAUs, parent agencies, and core components, as defined in this final rule.

* Agencies: Federal agencies vary widely in size and organizational structure. 40

* Recognized Statistical Agencies and Units: As of the time of the publication of this final rule, there are 16 RSAUs which vary in size from around 10 full time employees to around 7,000 full time employees. 41 Recognized Statistical Agencies and Units also vary in position within their organizational units and reporting structure.

* Parent agency: For this final rule, the term parent agency means, for an agency that contains an RSAU, the head of the agency, each organizational level within the agency under which the RSAU is positioned, and each core component of the agency.

* Core component: For this final rule, the term core component means any support component and any component that performs an agency-wide function. A support component means a component of an agency that contains an RSAU that supports programmatic functions in achieving the agency's mission, including legal, human resources, communications, legislative affairs, budget, information technology (IT), or procurement functions, but excludes any component of an RSAU. Components that perform agency-wide functions include the offices of the Chief Data Officer, the Evaluation Officer, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, Chief Information Officer, the Chief FOIA Officer, and similar functions.

OMB uses the following counts of entities with requirements from this final rule:

OMB expects that the 16 RSAUs are generally already implementing most requirements of this final rule in compliance with OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 1. However, OMB expects that the current landscape across agencies varies widely. OMB expects that for some parent agencies implementation of this final rule will be resource intensive; however, OMB also expects that some parent agencies already have rules, policies, and practices that align with a substantial number of the requirements in this final rule. Given the current landscape, OMB is uncertain about the exact number of agency rules, policies, and practices that will require revision based on this final rule.

For the calculations of the estimated costs throughout this section, OMB rounds up the estimates to the nearest thousand dollars. Rounding to the nearest thousand dollars removes the appearance of precision in the estimates where precision may not be known, and rounding up, instead of down, means that the estimates will not represent underestimates of the costs based on the assumptions OMB has made. For the following calculations in this section, OMB uses a general formula of number of entities multiplied by the number of hours to perform the task multiplied by labor cost per hour to get the total cost across the type of entity. OMB rounds this total cost by type of entity up to the nearest thousand. Then, OMB sums the rounded total costs across all types of entities to get the final estimated total cost to the Federal Government. OMB outlines the assumptions for the calculations and the total costs by type of entity in narrative form below. OMB also provides a table for each step of the process to summarize the assumptions and total costs.

This final rule will require RSAUs and parent agencies to first review this rule. This step includes reading the full rule and taking brief notes on possible intersections with agency rules, policies, and practices.

It is likely that this review will be performed by GS-14 Step 5 or equivalent staff within RSAUs and parent agencies, as this review will require a deep understanding of the parent agency's rules, policies, and practices to understand how the agency's rules, policies, and practices intersect with this final rule. This initial review of this final rule will inform the next steps of reviewing and making revisions to any relevant agency rules, policies, and practices. It is also likely that the staff will be based in the Washington, DC pay region, as many of the staff are likely to work for the headquarters locations. The hourly rate for a GS-14 Step 5 employee in the Washington, DC region per the Office of Personnel Management for calendar year 2024 is $75.70. OMB assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in a value of $151.40 per hour.

OMB expects that, for the parent agencies, a central office would do the first review for all of its units, except RSAUs, to identify which parts of the rule would apply to the different units. OMB expects this to be resource intensive for the central office, but OMB expects review of the rule by units will be less intensive because of the work done by the central office to target the units' review.

Because of this tiered review process, review of this rule is expected to take different lengths of time for different agencies. For each of the 16 RSAUs, OMB expects this review to take on average 16 hours. This means it would cost approximately $39,000 across all 16 RSAUs.

OMB expects it will take the central office for the 12 parent agencies on average 80 hours to do this review and identify relevant parts of the rule for its units. This means it would cost approximately $146,000 across the 12 agencies that contain an RSAU.

Following the central office review, OMB expects review for the 32 organization levels in direct reporting structure and 120 core components to take on average 24 hours for each. This means it would cost approximately $554,000 across both of these types of entities.

OMB does not expect agencies without an RSAU to review this rule. Therefore, across all RSAUs and parent agencies, the Governmentwide cost for reviewing this rule would be approximately $739,000.

After review of this rule, parent agencies will then review their own rules, policies, and practices to determine necessary action. This rule does not require RSAUs or agencies that do not fall within the definition of a parent agency to take this step. This step may require engagement across the agency, including with staff of any RSAUs in the organization.

Review of the rules, policies, and practices will vary across parent agencies, depending on the number of rules, policies, and practices issued by the agency.

OMB expects parent agencies may have different costs for reviewing their rules, policies, and practices. OMB is estimating the review time on a per rule, policy, or practice basis. Similar to the prior step of reviewing the final rule, this step to review the parent agency's own rules, policies, and practices includes reading of the full rule, policy, or practice and taking brief notes on possible intersections with this final rule. It is likely that this review will be performed by GS-14 Step 5 or equivalent staff within the agencies, as this review will require a deep understanding of the parent agency's own rules, policies, and practices to understand the intersections with this final rule to inform the next step of making revisions to those rules, policies, and practices. It is also likely that the staff will be based in the Washington, DC pay region, as many of the staff are likely to work for the agency headquarters locations. The hourly rate for a GS-14 Step 5 employee in the Washington, DC region per the Office of Personnel Management for calendar year 2024 is $75.70. OMB assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in a value of $151.40 per hour.

For the parent agencies, OMB estimates it will take on average 16 hours to review each rule, policy, or practice and determine necessary action. OMB expects it to take this much time for the parent agencies because they are likely to have rules, policies, and practices that intersect with this rule. OMB expects on average that the 12 central offices of parent agencies will have 5 items to review, the 32 organizational levels in direct reporting structure will have 20 items to review, and the 120 core components will have 5 items to review. Therefore, OMB estimates that across all central offices of parent agencies, it will cost approximately $146,000 for those entities to review their rules, policies, and practices and determine necessary action. OMB estimates that it will cost approximately $1,551,000 across all 32 organizational levels in the direct reporting structure and that it will cost $1,454,000 across all 120 core components to review their rules, policies, and practices and determine necessary action. Across all entities, OMB estimates it will cost approximately $3,151,000.

Where determined necessary after review of this rule and the agencies own rules, policies, and practices, parent agencies will need to revise rules, policies, and practices because of this rule. This rule does not require RSAUs or agencies that do not fall within the definition of a parent agency agencies to take this step. OMB expects that revisions will range from relatively small and technical to substantive and resource intensive, which means that the time required to draft the revisions and execute the revisions to issue a final update will vary.

The following provides the analysis for expected costs for the drafting of the revisions to rules, policies, and practices. For this analysis, OMB assumes the drafting of revised rules, policies, and practices will be performed by GS-14 Step 5 or equivalent staff within the agencies, as this drafting will require a deep understanding of the agencies' own rules, policies, and practices and their intersections with this final rule to appropriately revise those rules, policies, and practices. It is also likely that the staff will be based in the Washington, DC pay region, as many of the staff are likely to work for the agency headquarters locations. The hourly rate for a GS-14 Step 5 employee in the Washington, DC region per the Office of Personnel Management for calendar year 2024 is $75.70. OMB assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in a value of $151.40 per hour. In addition, OMB expects that the time to draft revisions to rules, policies, and practices is consistent across parent agencies and estimates that on average the time to draft revisions would be 120 hours per rule, policy, or practice.

For each of the 12 central offices of parent agencies and each of the 120 core components, OMB estimates on average that 3 rules, policies, or practices will require revision, whereas OMB estimates that for each of the 32 organizational levels in direct reporting structure, 15 rules, policies, or practices will require revision. Thus, the estimated cost to draft revisions to rules, policies, and practices is approximately $655,000 across all of the central offices of parent agencies and approximately $6,541,000 across all of the core components. Across all of the organizational levels in the direct reporting structure, OMB estimates the cost to be approximately $8,721,000. In sum, OMB estimates this to cost approximately $15,917,000.

Next, the parent agencies will need to implement the draft revisions, which includes steps such as gaining approval from the appropriate authorities within the parent agencies and issuing, if relevant, publicly available updates of the affected rules, policies, and practices. OMB expects the majority of revisions (~90 percent) to be to policies and practices and for it to be rare that a rule require revision (~10 percent). OMB also expects that finalizing revised policies and practices requires far less time (~80 hours per) than finalizing rules (~220 hours per). Taken together, OMB estimates on average that finalizing the revisions will take 100 hours per rule, policy, or practice. For this analysis, OMB assumes the same amount of time for all agencies because procedures to finalize revisions to rules, policies, and practices should be relatively consistent across parent agencies. To account for the differing levels of engagement within parent agencies to approve the final revisions to rules, policies, and practices, OMB is using an average hourly rate equivalent for a Senior Executive Service Level IV employee based in Washington, DC which is $92.26 for 2024. OMB assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in a value of $184.52 per hour. Using the number of rules, policies, and practices that require revision from the previous analysis, the costs are as follows:

Across all of the 12 central offices of parent agencies, OMB estimates the costs to be approximately $665,000. Across all of the 32 organizational levels within the agency that are in the direct reporting structure for the RSAU, OMB estimates the costs approximately $8,857,000.

Across all of the 120 core components, OMB expects the costs to be approximately $6,643,000. In sum, OMB expects these costs to total approximately $16,165,000.

Therefore, across the Federal Government, to review this rule and review and revise rules, policies, and practices as needed to meet the requirements of this rule, the estimated costs total approximately $35,972,000.

The proposed rule included three options under consideration for ensuring compliance with the final rule. Here OMB estimates the costs for the option selected in this final rule, which combines parts of two of the options from the proposed rule.

OMB expects that CIGIE will develop procedures and reference materials for the Inspectors General to use to provide consistency across their reviews. This final rule does not specify the structure of such work, so it may be implemented in a different format; however, OMB approximates the costs based on a committee structure. To develop estimated costs, OMB assumes that the Committee would include representatives from 8 agencies. For this analysis, OMB is using an average hourly rate equivalent for a Senior Executive Service Level IV employee based in Washington, DC which is $92.26 for 2024. OMB assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in a value of $184.52 per hour. OMB estimates that each member would spend on average about 48 hours per year dedicated to this work. Therefore, OMB estimates that this step will cost approximately $71,000 across all 8 agencies engaged in developing the procedures and materials.

Then, OMB estimates costs by activity for each of the reviews across the 3-year timeframe. Over the 3-year timeframe, OMB expects all 16 RSAUs to have an IG review and that the average time spent by each RSAU participating in this review would be 640 hours. OMB expects the participation to involve generally employees at a GS-14 Step 5 in the Washington, DC region, which results in a cost of $151.40 per hour. This results in an expected cost across all RSAUs of approximately $1,551,000.

In addition, OMB expects the 32 organizational levels in the reporting structure for RSAUs to participate in the reviews. Over the 3-year timeframe, OMB expects each of the 32 organizational levels in the reporting structure for RSAUs to spend 320 hours on average participating in the reviews. OMB expects this participation to be done on average by employees at a GS-14 Step 5 in the Washington, DC region, which results in a cost of $151.40 per hour. This results in an expected cost across all organizational levels of approximately $1,551,000. Then, OMB expects all 16 RSAUs to publish a summary of findings on their website and estimates on average that publication to take 4 hours of time by an employee with a cost of $151.40 per hour. This results in expected costs of approximately $10,000 across all RSAUs. For the next two activities, OMB is using an average hourly rate equivalent for a Senior Executive Service Level IV employee based in the Washington, DC region, which results in a cost of $184.52. For the Chief Statistician Engagement activity, over the 3-year timeframe it is expected that all 16 RSAUs will need to participate and that on average each agency's engagement would require 8 hours of the time of the head of the RSAU and 8 hours of the time of the Chief Statistician of the United States for a total of 16 hours per agency. This engagement would only occur once per agency over the 3-year timeframe and would cost approximately $48,000 across all RSAU agencies. Finally, OMB expects inspectors general (IGs) to incur time and costs engaging in these reviews. OMB estimates that over the 3-year timeframe all 16 separate reviews will need to occur and for each, each IG will spend on average 648 hours across the 3 years. Thus, OMB expects the cost for this activity across all IGs to be approximately $1,914,000.

In sum, over a 3-year timeframe OMB expects this process to cost approximately $5,074,000. This results in a cost of approximately $1,692,000 per year. Adding this cost with the cost for CIGIE to develop guidance, the annual cost is approximately $1,763,000 for the compliance review.

OMB considered some regulatory alternatives, as noted below. More information on the reasons OMB finalized the rule as it did is available above in the preamble.

Handling compliance review. OMB detailed three options for proposed compliance review requirements, and OMB finalizes the rule by combining Options B and C from the proposed rule.

Changing timeline for agencies to revise rules, policies, and practices. OMB did not receive any comments on this timeline, and OMB finalizes the rule such that these revisions must occur within 1 year of the effective date of this rule.

This final rule promotes trust in the work of RSAUs, which ultimately promotes trust in the data used by policymakers to inform their decisions. Any loss of trust in the accuracy, objectivity, or integrity of the Federal statistical system and its statistical products has the potential to cause uncertainty about the validity of measures the Nation uses to monitor and assess its performance, progress, and needs, as well as undermine the public's confidence in the information released by the Government. In addition, this final rule provides transparency and clarity to parent agencies and the public alike about how best a parent agency can enable, support, and facilitate the work of RSAUs.

Commenters noted in particular that maintaining trust in RSAUs has the benefits of helping to “maintain global competitiveness,”  45 as well as supporting the functioning of capital markets and serving as key inputs to family, business, and public policy decisions. 46 To realize these continued benefits from Federal statistics and in particular RSAUs, one commenter noted that certain provisions are especially helpful, such as the requirements on budget transparency and autonomy over the website. 47 Another commenter also cited the following uses of Federal statistics from RSAUs as general benefits to the public from this rule:  48

• “The Federal Reserve relies on the statistical agencies' estimates of output, employment, and inflation to set interest rates, which in turn affect everything from households' grocery bills to new housing starts.”

• “Businesses use federal statistics in deciding where and when to expand and innovate.”

• “Investors use industry-specific statistics to identify rapidly growing sectors with profitable investment opportunities.”

• “The federal government uses federal statistics to set spending levels—as when, for example, BLS's Consumer Price Index is used to set cost-of-living adjustments for 65+ million Social Security beneficiaries, and the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey is used to allocate $400+ billion in funding to state and local areas each year.”

• “State and local governments rely on federal statistics for their geographic areas to set economic development strategies.”

• “Researchers use federal data collections to build evidence on the effectiveness of workforce, trade, education, housing, financial, and other types of policies.”

• “Implemented effectively, the provisions of the proposed rule should go a long way towards maintaining the multifaceted streams of public benefits from federal statistics.”

• “Well-maintained, public-facing websites can help maximize the value of federal statistics to households, businesses, communities, policy makers, and capital markets, as the value of federally supported data collections depends on the public's ability to find, interpret, and use the system's output.”

• “Provisions ensuring that statistics are released on schedule builds trust in the agencies' ability to use public funds effectively to produce high-quality data products.”

• “Securing parent agencies' commitment to the agencies' access to productive resources—trained and skilled staff and 21st century hardware and software—will help avoid fluctuations in the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of data releases, which undercut confidence in the system's effectiveness.”

• “Reinforcing the federal statistical system's reputation for objectivity and independence—with rock-solid ability to protect private data against disclosure risk—will help offset households' and businesses' decreasing willingness to respond to federal data collections.”

The compliance review is a tool to ensure all agencies are accountable to the provisions of this final rule. To improve consistency in the compliance reviews across agencies, the Inspectors General will lead the compliance reviews and the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency will develop guidance for the compliance reviews. The compliance reviews will enhance the benefits of the rest of the rule.

This final rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Executive Order 12866 was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563 and reaffirmed and amended by Executive Order 14094. Consistent with Executive Order 14094, OMB solicited and considered input from interested parties through a variety of means.

This final rule is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because it does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has certified that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule implements the fundamental responsibilities for statistical agencies and units and requires other Federal agencies to support, enable, and facilitate statistical agencies and units in meeting their fundamental responsibilities. Thus, the final rule would have no direct effect on non-governmental entities, including small businesses.

This final rule does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). However, if in accordance with any of the requirements finalized in this rule an agency were to determine a need to implement a reporting or recordkeeping requirement subject to the PRA, the agency should comply with the requirements of the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, or otherwise have federalism implications.

RD is a mission area within USDA comprised of the RUS, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service and Rural Housing Service that strives to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for all rural Americans. RD invests in rural America with loan, grant, and loan guarantee programs to help drive economic security and prosperity.

Rural communities obtain the technical assistance and financing necessary to develop drinking water and waste disposal systems through RUS WEP. Safe drinking water and sanitary waste disposal systems are vital not only to public health, but also to the economic vitality of rural America. RD is a leader in helping rural America improve the quality of life and increase the economic opportunities for rural people.

OMB revised several parts of OMB Guidance for Grants and Agreements which is now called OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance and is located in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The revisions were published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024, at 89 FR 30046. The revisions must be implemented by October 1, 2024, but can be implemented any time after June 21, 2024. This final rule is being published as a technical/administrative correction to ensure the Agency's audit and financial statement requirements align with the OMB revisions made to 2 CFR part 200.

Section 1775.21(a) and (b) were updated to remove the $750,000 monetary amount in order to reference the current Single Audit threshold and to amend the audit submission deadline. The audit submission requirement was updated to be thirty (30) calendar days after the auditee receives the auditor's report or nine (9) months after the end of the grantee's fiscal year, whichever is earlier. These changes were made to align with the updates to 2 CFR part 200.

This final rule is exempt from OMB review for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by OMB.

This rule is not subject to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as the CRA provides an exemption for any rule relating to agency management or personnel and for rules relating to agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

The Assistance Listing Numbers assigned to the programs affected by this final rule are 10.761—Technical Assistance and Training Grants and 10.762—Solid Waste Management Systems Grants. The Assistance Listings are available at SAM.gov .

The Assistance Listing Numbers are 10.761 and 10.762 for these programs and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials

This final rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping provisions under OMB Control Number 0572-0112 requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, this final rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970 (“Environmental Policies and Procedures”). The Agency has determined that: (i) This action meets the criteria established in 7 CFR 1970.53(f); (ii) No extraordinary circumstances exist; and (iii) The action is not “connected” to other actions with potentially significant impacts, is not considered a “cumulative action” and is not precluded by 40 CFR 1506.1. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the action does not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

RUS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The RUS Water and Waste loan and grant programs provide loans to borrowers at interest rates and terms that are more favorable than those generally available from the private sector. RUS borrowers, as a result of obtaining Federal financing, receive economic benefits that exceed any direct economic costs associated with complying with RUS regulations and requirements.

Section 270 of the Administrative Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, div. B, title III, 137 Stat 31) amended 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(2)(A) to require U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess agency compliance with the Act, which establishes requirements for administrative actions that affect direct spending, in GAO's major rule reports. The Act does not apply to this rule because it does not increase direct spending.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this rule: (1) unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court that challenges action taken under this rule.

This final rule contains no Federal Mandates (under the regulatory provision of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The policies contained in this rule do not have any 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This Executive order imposes requirements on RUS in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications or preempt Tribal laws. The Agency has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If Tribal leaders are interested in consulting with the Agencies on this final rule, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or RD's Native American Coordinator at: AIAN@usda.gov to request such a consultation.

RD is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible and 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.

RD has reviewed this final rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital or familial status. Based on the review and analysis of the rule and all available data, issuance of this final rule is not likely to negatively impact low and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes or persons with disability, by virtue of their age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or marital or familial status. No major civil rights impact is likely to result from this final rule.

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; or the 711 Relay Service.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ad-3027.pdf, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: Program.Intake@usda.gov.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agency amends 7 CFR part 1775 as follows:

The RHS is committed to helping improve the economy and quality of life in rural areas by offering a variety of programs. The Agency offers loans, grants, and loan guarantees to help create jobs, expand economic development, and provide critical infrastructure investments. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants by partnering with agricultural producers, cooperatives, Indian tribes, non-profits, and other local, State, and Federal agencies.

Affordable housing is essential to the vitality of communities in rural America. Rural Development's Single Family Housing Programs give families and individuals the opportunity to purchase, build, repair their existing home, or to refinance their current mortgage under certain criteria. Eligibility for these loans, loan guarantees, or grants is based on income which varies according to the average median income for each eligible rural area.

The objective of the Section 502 Direct Loan Program under 7 CFR part 3550 is to assist very low and low-income applicants to own adequate but modest, decent, safe, and sanitary housing in eligible rural areas by providing payment assistance to increase an applicant's repayment ability. The payment assistance is a type of subsidy that reduces the mortgage payment for a short time and is determined by the adjusted family income. There are a number of different factors that determine the applicant's eligibility for this program but at minimum they must have the adjusted income that is at or below the applicable low-income limit for the area where they wish to purchase a home and they must demonstrate a willingness and have the ability to repay the debt.

The Section 502 Guaranteed Loan Program, under 7 CFR part 3555, provides a 90% loan note guarantee to approved lenders to assist low- and moderate-income households the opportunity to own decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings as their primary residence in eligible rural areas. Eligible applicants may purchase, build, rehabilitate, improve, or relocate a dwelling in an eligible rural area. Applicant eligibility for this program is determined by the lender.

RHS may authorize limited demonstration programs to test new approaches to offering housing under the statutory authority granted to the Secretary, as set forth in 7 CFR 3550.7 and 3555.2(b). Such demonstration programs may not be consistent with some of the provisions contained in this part. However, any program requirements that are statutory will remain in effect.

In 2022, the Agency extended the existing pilot in order to continue assessing the pilots' impact. The first pilot involves financing existing manufactured homes; the second pilot involves the ownership requirement for new energy-efficient manufactured and modular homes in land-lease communities operating on a nonprofit basis. These allowances remain unchanged from any previous extensions of this pilot. While the number of participating states remain restricted, the pilot ensures adequate regional representation.

The Agency is continuing with the existing pilot, which was initially implemented on August 12, 2016, and continued via a document published in the Federal Register (at 87 FR 66075 on November 2, 2022), which expires on November 4, 2024. In the November 22, 2022, document, the Agency waived the regulatory restrictions in 7 CFR parts 3550 and 3555 and permitted the financing of existing manufactured homes in the pilot states even when the home was not currently financed by the Agency. Under the current regulations, new manufactured homes are eligible for financing through the Section 502 Single Family Housing (SFH) Direct and Guaranteed Loan Programs. Existing manufactured homes are not eligible unless the home is already financed through Rural Development (RD) (7 CFR 3550.52(e)(l); 3550.73(b); 3555.208(b)(3)). The Agency anticipates the completion of rulemaking in the near future that will codify the waivers into 7 CFR parts 3550 and 3555, and which will be applied program wide.

Approved lenders in the SFH Guaranteed Loan Program do not require additional approval to participate provided the home is in a pilot state. The loan request must be from an eligible applicant, all the pilot conditions listed in this section must be met, and all other program requirements that have not been waived must also be met.

The following States are included in this pilot:

Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The following unit requirements below must be met:

The unit must have been constructed on or after January 1, 2006, in conformance with the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (FMHCSS), as evidenced by an affixed Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Certification Label, and the unit must not have been previously installed on a different homesite, or had any structural alterations to it since construction in the factory, except for porches, decks, or other structures which were built to engineered designs or were approved and inspected by local code officials.

The unit inspection is required using one of two methods:

Option 1 —Form HUD-309, “HUD Manufactured Home Installation Certification and Verification Report” completed in accordance with 24 CFR 3286.511 by a qualified party as follows: A manufactured home or residential building inspector employed by the local authority having jurisdiction over the site of the home, provided that the jurisdiction has a residential code enforcement program; a professional engineer, registered architect a HUD-accepted Production Inspection Primary Inspection Agency (IPIA) or a Design Approval Primary Inspection Agency (DAPIA), or an International Code Council (ICC) certified inspector;

Or

Option 2—Obtain a certification that the foundation design meets the requirements of either HUD Handbook 4930.3G or HUD Publication 7584, which updated and revised the pre-1996 version of HUD Handbook 4930.3G, “Permanent Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing (PFGMH).” Certifications referencing either Publication 7584 or Handbook 4930.3G are acceptable. The foundation certification must be from a licensed professional engineer or registered architect who is licensed/registered in the state where the manufactured home is located and must attest to current guidelines of the PFGMH. The certification must be site specific and contain the engineer's or registered architect's signature, seal, and/or state license/certification number. This certification can take the place of Form HUD 309.

Guaranteed loan applications submitted under this pilot must be manually submitted and underwritten; however, the documents may be submitted through GUS. A job aid for this type of submission is available in the USDA LINC Training and Resource Library in the “Loan Origination” tab or directly here: https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/linc_manual_submission_job_aid.pdf. Agency staff will need to select “MANUFACTURED (PILOT)” for “Construction Type” in the Property Information section in GLS. This will allow for the proper identification of pilot loans for tracking and monitoring purposes.

Direct loan applications submitted under the pilot are submitted directly to the local RD office. Agency staff will need to select Program Type Code 1014 (very low income) or 1015 (low income) unless the property is located in a persistent poverty county, in which case Program Type Code 1114 (very low income) or 1115 (low income) will be used. In addition, Agency staff will need to select a Construction Type of “Manuf/Home” and a Dwelling Type of “Purchase Old, Refinance, Purchase Old/Repair, or Refinance/Repair” in UniFi. This will allow for the proper identification of pilot loans for tracking and monitoring purposes.

The applicant and property must meet all other criteria set forth in 7 CFR part 3550 and HB-1-3550 for Direct loans or 7 CFR part 3555 and HB-1-3555 for Guaranteed loans, as applicable. These criteria include, but are not limited to, the following: The unit must have a floor area of not less than 400 square feet; the unit must meet the Comfort Heating and Cooling Certificate Uo Value Zone for the location; the towing hitch and running gear must have been removed; the manufactured home must be classified and taxed as real estate; the remaining economic life of the property must meet or exceed the 30 year term of the proposed loan; and the unit replacement cost coverage must be equal to the insured value of the improvements or the unpaid principal balance with deductible(s) of up to but not exceeding the greater of $1,000 or one percent (1%) of the policy. For Guaranteed Loans, the unit should have replacement cost coverage in an amount that is at least equal to the guaranteed value of the improvements or the unpaid principal balance, with the deductible not exceeding five percent (5%) of the total coverage amount.

The Agency is continuing with the existing pilot that involves the ownership requirement for new energy-efficient manufactured and modular homes in land-lease communities operating on a nonprofit basis. According to 7 CFR 3550.58(b), a leasehold interest must have an unexpired term that is at least 150 percent of the term of the mortgage for Direct loans. According to 7 CFR 3555.203(b)(3), a leasehold interest must have an unexpired term of at least 45 years from the date of loan closing for a Guaranteed loan.

Under this pilot, RD will accept a lease with an unexpired term that is at least two years beyond the term of the promissory note in the pilot states.

The following States are included in this pilot: California, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The loan request must be from an eligible applicant, all the pilot conditions must be met, and new manufactured and modular homes must meet the following pilot conditions:

At a minimum, new manufactured and modular homes must be Energy Star compliant. Additionally, the unexpired term of the lease must be at least two years longer than the mortgage term. While the lease terms in 7 CFR 3550.58(b) and 3555.203(b)(3) offer borrowers some protections, many states have statutes that promulgate fair lease terms and safeguard residents of land-lease communities.

For the SFH Guaranteed Loan Program, pilot states should consider following the recommendations in HUD's interim guidance related to 24 CFR 3285.312 on the use of frost-free foundations or frost protected shallow foundations.

For the SFH Direct Loan Program, pilot states may use the recommendations from HUD's interim guidance on frost-free or frost-protected shallow foundations in lieu of RD Instruction 1924-A, Exhibit J. Under the HUD interim guidance recommendations, the installer should install all footings and piers below the frost line depth, or for Frost Free Foundations, have a site investigation performed by a soil engineer or geotechnical engineer to verify if the soil condition at each home site is of a non-frost susceptible classification and is well drained. In lieu of a site soil investigation, a layer of washed gravel, or crushed stone, or course or dense sand may be provided to the frost line depth. For either of these alternatives, subsurface drains need to be provided; or use a Frost Protected Shallow Foundation system that utilizes below ground insulation to protect the soil from freezing with subsurface drains provided at each site.

The applicant and property must meet all other criteria set forth in 7 CFR part 3550 and HB-1-3550 for Direct loans or 7 CFR part 3555 and HB-1-3555 for Guaranteed loans, as applicable for application guidance. Program Directors should use the tracking tool under the “Energy Efficient Housing” link on the SFH SharePoint tracking site to report loans made under this pilot.

The regulatory waivers for this pilot contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0575-0179 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; or the 711 Federal Relay Service.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA Program Discrimination Complaint from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or (2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: Program.Intake@usda.gov.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2024 (89 FR 55128). The NPRM was prompted a report indicating cracks at eight fastener hole locations in the fuselage skin lap splice between STAs 1450 and 1470 at stringers S-23L and S-23R.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections of the upper fastener row of the fuselage skin lap splice in a certain area for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the upper fastener row of the fuselage skin lap splice between STAs 1350 and 1480 at stringers S-23L and S-23R. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an in-flight rapid decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

The FAA received a comment from Boeing who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2912 RB, dated April 5, 2024. This material specifies procedures for repetitive external surface high frequency eddy current inspections of the upper fastener row of the fuselage skin lap splice between STAs 1350 and 1480 at stringers S-23L and S-23R for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include obtaining and following repair instructions.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 170 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -800 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2024 (89 FR 52408). The NPRM was prompted by a report that the protective spiral wrap used on certain galley wire bundles does not have the correct flammability properties and may not self-extinguish. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting certain galleys to determine part numbers, inspecting for an existing galley modification placard and marking on galleys with affected part numbers, and replacing wire bundle spiral wrap sleeving as applicable; and to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the incorrect flammability properties, which, if not addressed, could result in electrical arcing or sparking, ignition of the spiral wire wrapping, and smoke and/or fire in the flight compartment, leading to loss of continued safe flight and landing.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Aviation Partners Boeing. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE and STC ST01219SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that STC ST00830SE and STC ST01219SE do not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE and STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-25A1873 RB, dated August 25, 2023; and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-25A1876 RB, dated September 1, 2023. This material specifies procedures for an inspection or records check to determine the part number of certain galleys; and for any galley with an affected part number found, an inspection for an existing galley modification placard and any marking indicating the galley was modified using certain service information; and, if applicable, replacement of wire bundle polyethylene protective spiral wrap protective sleeving with Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 13-81 wire protective sleeving. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-02-08, Amendment 39-22315 (88 FR 7867, February 7, 2023) (AD 2023-02-08). AD 2023-02-08 applied to certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. AD 2023-02-08 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-02-08 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2024 (89 FR 50241). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0052, dated February 23, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0052) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2023-02-08. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0052. The FAA is issuing this AD to address among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1482.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0052 that revises the ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Document and incorporates EASA AD 2020-0249R1, which required a repetitive operational test for discrepancies of the stall warning system and stick pusher in the flight configuration for ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72 airplanes. This service information specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. EASA AD 2020-0249R1 revises EASA AD 2020-0249, which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-26-17, Amendment 39-21372 (85 FR 81795, December 17, 2020) (AD 2020-26-17).

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0200, dated September 26, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March 14, 2023 (88 FR 7867, February 7, 2023).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-02-08 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-12-03, Amendment 39-22461 (88 FR 42598, July 3, 2023; corrected August 7, 2023 (88 FR 52024)) (AD 2023-12-03), and AD 2023-04-05, Amendment 39-22352 (88 FR 13668, March 6, 2023) (AD 2023-04-05). AD 2023-12-03 and AD 2023-04-05 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. AD 2023-12-03 and AD 2023-04-05 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. AD 2023-12-03 specified that accomplishing the revision required by that AD terminated certain requirements of AD 2023-04-05. The FAA issued AD 2023-12-03 and AD 2023-04-05 to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2024 (89 FR 53364). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0005, dated January 5, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0005) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require all actions in AD 2023-12-03 and certain actions in AD 2023-04-05, and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0005. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1694.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2024-0005 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2023-0004, dated January 6, 2023, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of August 7, 2023 (88 FR 42598, July 3, 2023; corrected August 7, 2023 (88 FR 52024)).

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0125, dated June 28, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of April 10, 2023 (88 FR 13668, March 6, 2023).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 31 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-12-03 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-2329; Project Identifier AD-2024-00451-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David Herron, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (206) 231-3544; email: david.herron@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA received two reports of a link part number (P/N) 145C3340-10 failure involving a Model CH-47D helicopter. In both reports, it was determined that the failed link was manufactured by Aero Components Inc., which was not an approved supplier for these links. Boeing advised that failure of one link was caused by an eccentricity of the threaded bore in the end of the tube associated with the rod-end installation, which was determined to be a manufacturing defect; this resulted in a thin wall condition on one-side. Failure of the other link showed the same contributor, but on the opposite end of the tube.

Boeing advised some links having P/N 145C3340 have been found to have missing or illegible markings; however, both failed links involve clear Aero Components Inc. CAGE code markings. Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Model 234 helicopters are also affected by the unsafe condition since the affected links may also be installed on that model helicopter.

This condition, if not addressed, could result in link failure within the flight control system due to fatigue. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products and subsequent immediate loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing CH-47 Service Bulletin No. 145-67-1047, dated May 22, 2024. This material specifies procedures for inspecting link P/N 145C3340-10 to determine its manufacturing code and, depending on the results, contacting Boeing for additional assistance or replacing the link.

This AD requires removing links P/N 145C3340-10 with manufacturing CAGE code 59213 from service and prohibits installing those links on any helicopter.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the affected component is part of an assembly that is critical to the flight control of a helicopter, such that if failure occurs in the affected component subsequent immediate loss of control of a helicopter will occur. As the FAA has no information pertaining to the extent of fatigue of the affected component that may currently exist in helicopters or how quickly the condition may propagate to failure, the actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 days. The compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 36 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Replacing a link will take 8 work-hours and parts will cost $1,963 for an estimated cost of $2,643 per helicopter.

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

This order (1) sets forth FinCEN's determination that PM2BTC, an unincorporated convertible virtual currency (CVC) exchanger (a type of virtual asset service provider or VASP), is a financial institution operating outside of the United States that is of primary money laundering concern  1 in connection with Russian illicit finance; and (2) prohibits certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC by any covered financial institution.

As set out in this order, PM2BTC, a CVC exchanger offering CVC and fiat currency exchange services with significant ties to, and connections with, Russia, is of primary money laundering in connection with Russian illicit finance through its facilitation of funds transfers by illicit actors and association with a wide array of illicit activities, including fraud schemes, sanctions evasion, ransomware attacks, and child abuse.

Section 9714(a) of the Combating Russian Money Laundering Act (Pub. L. 116-283), as amended by section 6106(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Pub. L. 117-81) (hereafter, “section 9714”), 2 provides, in relevant part, that, if the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) “determines that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that one or more financial institutions operating outside of the United States . . . is of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance,” the Secretary may, “by order, regulation, or otherwise as permitted by law”: (1) require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to take 1 or more of the special measures described in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b);  3 or (2) prohibit, or impose conditions upon, certain transmittals of funds (as defined by the Secretary) by any domestic financial institution or domestic financial agency, if such transmittal of funds involves any such institution. The authority of the Secretary to administer both section 9714 and the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) has been delegated to FinCEN. 4

The six special measures set out in section 9714 are prophylactic safeguards that may be employed to defend the United States financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing risks with a nexus to Russian illicit finance. The Secretary may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from such threats. Specifically, the Secretary may impose any of the five special measures set out in 31 U.S.C. 5318A, commonly known as section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Through special measure one, the Secretary may require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to maintain records, file reports, or both, concerning the aggregate amount of transactions or individual transactions. 5 Through special measures two through four, the Secretary may impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting requirements on covered domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies. 6 Through special measure five, the Secretary may prohibit, or impose conditions upon, the opening or maintaining in the United States of correspondent or payable-through accounts for or on behalf of a foreign banking institution, if the class of transactions found to be of primary money laundering concern may be conducted through such correspondent account or payable-through account. 7 In addition to the special measures set out in 31 U.S.C. 5318A, section 9714 also provides that the Secretary may impose a special measure prohibiting, or imposing conditions upon, certain transmittals of funds. 8

PM2BTC is a CVC exchanger, a category of VASP, that exists as a collection of several exchange services. By its own account, PM2BTC is comprised of the following exchange services: PM2BTC.ME, BTC2PM.ME, PM2CASHIN.ME, BTC2CASHIN.ME, PM2WM.ME, and BTC2WM.ME. 9

Although PM2BTC—through each of its constituent exchange services—is advertised as an automated web product, FinCEN assesses that this collective grouping of exchange services should be considered a single organization, and for that reason, FinCEN will correspondingly refer to this collective, its activities, and its website as “PM2BTC”. Indeed, notwithstanding the characterization in its advertisements, PM2BTC holds itself out as a legal person insofar as PM2BTC states—in its terms of service—that use of its exchange services constitutes a contract between parties to an agreement, with PM2BTC expressly identified as a party. Consistent with that characterization in its terms of service, FinCEN assess that PM2BTC also operates as a standard organization, comprised of its founders/operators and employees, with consistent and coordinated internal operations and customer service interfaces. As a threshold matter, PM2BTC, including each of its constituent exchange services, is operated, with other persons, by Sergey Sergeevich Ivanov (Ivanov), a Russian national with an established history of advertising the use of U.S.-based money services businesses for cashouts and drops services on various Russian-speaking cybercrime forums, ties to top-tier cyber criminals and cybercrime services, and apparent ties to other online CVC exchanges and an associated payment processing service associated with ransomware, bank fraud, malware, and other suspected illicit activity. In addition, in its daily operations, PM2BTC relies on developers and other personnel. As set out in its terms of service, for example, PM2BTC's “administration” conducts anti-money laundering (AML) checks of all the transactions it processes, with corresponding authority to verify users and suspend the execution of the transactions, as well as to assess a “commission” for processing the transaction. 10 Moreover, each of PM2BTC's constituent exchange services offers an identical customer service point of contact—“pm2btc”—on a Russian messaging platform, and the same email address—“ support@pm2btc[.]me ”—with each apparently offering customer service support through PM2BTC personnel. 11 As such, FinCEN assesses that, rather than a mere automated web product, PM2BTC is an organization that operates as a service provider. 12

Further, in light of its activities and the services it provides, PM2BTC is a financial institution within the meaning of section 9714. According to its official website, 13 PM2BTC allows customers to exchange between Russian Rubles (RUB) and various CVCs, including Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), and Dash (DASH), as well as other CVC offered by Russian money service businesses—Perfect Money  14 and WebMoney. 15 As a general matter, the names of PM2BTC's constituent exchange services denote the exchangeable direction of the offered CVC or fiat currencies. For example, PM2BTC as an exchange service, converts the digital currency Perfect Money—or “PM”—into Bitcoin—or BTC—and thus, taken together, the name of the exchanger—PM2BTC—captures the service and direction of exchange. As a general matter, transactions through PM2BTC's constituent exchange services follow generally similar processes. By way of illustration, PM2BTC's official PM2BTC.ME website details a transaction process whereby, for example, PM2BTC connects to a customer's Perfect Money (PM) account and coordinates the conversion of PM into BTC, subsequently receiving a fixed fee. To carry out this type of exchange transaction, a customer would enter their PM account information and a corresponding BTC wallet address to which PM2BTC would send BTC. Once the order is submitted, PM2BTC would effectuate the withdrawal of PM value and send BTC to the customer-designated wallet, completing the transaction. 16 Although section 9714 does not expressly define the term “financial institution,” FinCEN has long defined that term to apply to foreign and domestic “money transmitters,” including persons that accept and transmit value that substitutes for currency, such as CVC. 17 VASPs, such as PM2BTC, are “money transmitters” because they are engaged in the transfer of funds as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100. PM2BTC is therefore a financial institution within the meaning of section 9714.

Additionally, based on public and non-public information available to FinCEN, PM2BTC operates outside the United States and, although it is not incorporated in any jurisdiction, PM2BTC has significant ties to, and connections with, Russia. Indeed, PM2BTC presents substantial ties to the Russian financial sector and largely—but not exclusively—offers exchange services between individual, often Russian users as well as Russian financial institutions and financial services platforms. As a threshold matter, the “Exchange Regulations and AML & KYC” policies for certain of PM2BTC's constituent exchange services expressly reference, and indicate a need to comply with, Russian law under certain circumstances, 18 as well as require users to acknowledge that payments will be processed during the exchange's working hours, set on Moscow Standard Time (MSK). 19 More significantly, PM2BTC provides services that, as noted above, permit customers to exchange between Russian Rubles (RUB) and various CVCs. In fact, each of PM2BTC's constituent exchange services automatically converts the value of BTC the customer is preparing to send to the service to its equivalent value in Russian Rubles. 20 Among its services, PM2BTC also provides specific services to users in, or transacting in, Russia, including, for instance, offering services to convert BTC to cash at certain Russian banks, permitting users only to identify Russia for “Receivers [sic] Country” (meaning the service will transmit funds to Russia), providing customers ready access to numerous Russian banks and money service businesses, and offering Cyrillic script user interfaces.

PM2BTC can carry out such transactions quickly, with most transactions up to 30,000 RUB completed within 15-60 minutes, although PM2BTC's website notes that transactions with Alfa-Bank require up to two hours. 21 In addition, PM2BTC has ongoing arrangements with numerous Russian financial institutions and financial service providers, including but not limited to JSC Alfa-Bank (Alfa-Bank), 22 Perfect Money, WebMoney, and Limited Liability Company YooMoney (YooMoney). 23 For instance, according to PM2BTC's official BTC2CASHIN.ME website, PM2BTC's services that offer conversion of BTC to cash for customers contain a drop-down menu called “method of obtaining” for customers to select which of the financial institutions they wish to transact with. The dropdown menu lists numerous Russian banks and money service businesses, including, but not limited to, Alfa-Bank and YooMoney.

Based on public and non-public information available to FinCEN, FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that PM2BTC, a CVC exchanger with significant ties to and connections with Russia, is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance through its facilitation of funds transfers by Russian-affiliated illicit actors and associated with a wide array of illicit activities, including fraud schemes, sanctions evasion, ransomware attacks, and child abuse.

Based on blockchain analysis, FinCEN identified significant ties between PM2BTC and a broad spectrum of illicit actors and illicit activities. FinCEN's analysis, using the combined counterparty information from two clusters attributed to PM2BTC by commercially available blockchain analytic software found that a substantial percentage of transactions processed through PM2BTC were associated with wallet addresses linked to illicit actors and activity, including fraud shops, illicit actors or organizations, sanctioned persons and jurisdictions, ransomware attackers, darknet markets (DNMs), scam operators, child abuse materials traffickers, and entities that are the subject of FinCEN-imposed special measures. In addition to the specific categories of illicit activity with which PM2BTC is associated, FinCEN determined that PM2BTC facilitates a disproportionally high volume of suspected illicit activity compared to peer exchange service providers. Moreover, alarmingly, PM2BTC also employs a technique that is used to stymie the ability to trace illicit funds to or from PM2BTC, which permits illicit actors access to a money laundering platform and also decreases the risk of this activity being identified by investigating authorities.

As a threshold matter, FinCEN found that a predominant percentage of transactions processed through PM2BTC were linked to suspected illicit activity. Based on analysis conducted using commercially available blockchain analysis software A, FinCEN has determined that, as a percentage of all funds transacted before July 2023, the cumulative value of suspected illicit funds accounted for up to 43.1 percent of all CVC received by PM2BTC. Those funds were associated with suspected illicit activities that include, in order of cumulative value, fraud schemes, transfers of stolen funds, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing, ransomware payments, and child abuse materials transactions. Significantly, further analysis comparing transactions through PM2BTC against transactions involving 1,244 other VASPs from around the world indicated that, after adjusting for the relative size of the other VASPs analyzed, PM2BTC is in the top one percent of direct receiving exposure and the top two percent of indirect receiving exposure to the categories deemed to be associated with suspected illicit activity. In short, PM2BTC has exceedingly high exposure to, and association with, transactions associated with suspected illicit activity compared to peer VASPs throughout the world, presenting a significant money laundering risk.

PM2BTC's exposure to, and facilitation of, transactions associated with suspected illicit activity is, importantly, consistent with its long-standing associations with a wide range of illicit actors, including, in particular, Russian ransomware groups, darknet markets, and sanctioned persons.

For several years, PM2BTC processed, for example, a substantial volume of transactions associated with the now-defunct Conti and Trickbot ransomware gangs. 24 According to blockchain analysis using commercially available blockchain analytic software, between February 5, 2018, and February 2, 2021, Trickbot, including its affiliates and associates, processed approximately $4,299,457 of CVC through PM2BTC. 25 Those transactions constituted, by value, a significant majority of PM2BTC's ransomware-related financial activity during the period. In addition, although the Conti and Trickbot ransomware gangs are now defunct, PM2BTC continues to process transactions involving CVC from sources attributed to other variants of ransomware.

In addition to ties to ransomware-related transactions, PM2BTC has a long history of facilitating transactions involving darknet  26 markets, including the now-defunct Russia-linked darknet markets Hydra—which was sanctioned by OFAC in April 2022  27 —and Ferum Shop. 28 Darknet markets are fundamentally illicit in nature and can operate largely as a result of the inherent anonymity of the darknet infrastructure, facilitating illicit activity because of the difficulty involved for law enforcement in identifying users, infrastructure, and even domains associated with the sale of illicit goods and services. 29 FinCEN assesses that, between 2016 and 2022, PM2BTC regularly processed transactions involving Hydra and Ferum Shop. For instance, between June 15, 2016, and January 30, 2021, Hydra sent a total of $41,361 worth of CVC to PM2BTC. Similarly, based on analysis conducted using commercially available blockchain analytic software, Ferum Shop sent a total of $3,453,610 worth of CVC to PM2BTC between April 6, 2021, and February 8, 2022. In addition, although Hydra and Ferum Shop have now been shut down, 30 PM2BTC continues to process a substantial volume of transactions, by value, associated with darknet markets. Indeed, based on analysis conducted using commercially available blockchain analytic software, PM2BTC processed transactions valued at over $600,000 involving other darknet markets between July 22, 2023, and January 14, 2024.

Finally, PM2BTC has long-standing and close ties to an array of Russian or Russian-affiliated financial institutions that are the subject of U.S. sanctions or other restrictions. As noted earlier, PM2BTC has ongoing arrangements with numerous Russian financial institutions and financial service providers, including but not limited to YooMoney (an affiliate of Sberbank) and Alfa-Bank, each of which are the subject of U.S. sanctions. 31 In addition, since 2020, PM2BTC has conducted an increasing volume of transactional activity with Garantex, a Russian-affiliated VASP that was sanctioned by the United States in April 2022. 32 Between November 11, 2020, and September 20, 2023, PM2BTC engaged in CVC transactions with a value of nearly $300,000 involving Garantex, and notably, the bulk of those transactions occurred only after sanctions were imposed on Garantex. During largely the same period, PM2BTC also engaged in a sizable volume of transactions with Bitzlato Limited (Bitzlato), a Russian-affiliated CVC exchanger identified by FinCEN in January 2023 as a financial institution operating outside of the United States that was of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance, under section 9714. 33 According to blockchain analysis conducted by FinCEN using commercially available blockchain analytic software, between May 10, 2018, and January 17, 2023, Bitzlato sent approximately $154,429 worth of CVC to PM2BTC and, in turn, received approximately $541,307 worth of CVC from PM2BTC.

Taken as a whole, PM2BTC's historic and ongoing facilitation of transactions by, and associations with, illicit actors, including ransomware groups, darknet markets, and sanctioned persons connected to Russian illicit finance, combined with its access to international markets presents substantial money laundering risk.

The risks presented by PM2BTC associations with illicit actors and comparative high volume of transactional activity linked to suspected illicit activity are compounded by PM2BTC's lax KYC and AML policies and procedures, as well as recent technical changes that have the effect of obscuring PM2BTC's involvement in transactions.

Although PM2BTC purports to maintain KYC and AML policies and procedures, those policies and procedures appear inadequate and loosely implemented. According to its website, PM2BTC “adhere[s] to a number of rules and implements a number of procedures aimed at preventing the use of the service for the purpose of money laundering operations.”  34 Moreover, as set out in its terms of service, PM2BTC retains the ability to, and may, suspend the execution of transactions until verification is carried out in accordance with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations and “request from the User identification data and data confirming the source of funds.”  35

However, in practice, PM2BTC appears to only require users to provide the following information in order to conduct a transaction: (1) the type of CVC involved; (2) the value of the CVC to be sent or received; and (3) an email address (required “in order to communicate with the User, if necessary, to notify about Service's profitable offers”). 36 Such limited information is not consistent with FATF recommendations. There appears to be no requirement to provide a name, date of birth, address, national identification, or any other proof of identification—all necessary to meaningfully establish and verify the identity of users and core features of the FATF's guidance on necessary official identity data points for an effective KYC and AML program. 37 Indeed, in contrast to PM2BTC's claim that it adheres to FATF standards, it represents that it offers “[c]omplete anonymity of exchanges” and that “[t]here is no need to register or undergo any verification to make an exchange.”  38

Notwithstanding its purported policies and procedures, FinCEN assesses that PM2BTC has implemented technical changes to its wallet arrangement that have the effect of obscuring its involvement when transacting with other VASPs. On or around July 2023, FinCEN assesses that PM2BTC implemented a cyclical infrastructure setup—a continuous creation of new wallets which are rotating and temporary—that avoids the reuse of wallets and, contrary to standard practice among VASPs, impedes any capacity to capture long-term transactional histories that would allow financial institutions to identify PM2BTC as the counterparty to a transaction. This typology is not wholly new and, for instance, has been employed by several VASPs of concern, some of whom are subjected to OFAC sanctions. In FinCEN's assessment, this typology can be, and has been, used to facilitate evasion of U.S. sanctions. Here, FinCEN assesses that PM2BTC's cyclical infrastructure setup is an effort to avoid blockchain forensics-based transaction monitoring—an outcome that is already evident in the precipitous decline in observable transactions associated with suspected illicit activity since July 2023. FinCEN assesses that this decline in such observable transactions is a result of PM2BTC's efforts to avoid blockchain activity monitoring, and is not a true reflection of PM2BTC's actual business activity with illicit actors.

Taken together, PM2BTC's lax implementation of KYC and AML policies and procedures and adoption of a technical arrangement that inhibits effective blockchain analysis increases the risk PM2BTC poses to the international and U.S. financial systems.

The record amply demonstrates that PM2BTC's services are used, to an unusually large extent by comparison to other CVC exchanges, to facilitate illicit activities by illicit actors. Although PM2BTC offers services that could potentially be used by licit actors, those services may be found at other VASPs, including VASPs located in jurisdictions with robust AML/CFT frameworks and regulatory oversight. Legitimate actors have access to a broad range of comparable services that provide for appropriate transparency and can support international efforts to protect the integrity of the international financial system, including transactions involving CVC. Accordingly, given the extensive flow of illegitimate funds through PM2BTC, FinCEN assesses that the need to protect U.S. financial institutions from the money laundering risks presented by PM2BTC outweighs any potential legitimate utility its services may provide.

Having found that PM2BTC is a financial institution operating outside the United States that is of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance, FinCEN has determined that the imposition of a special measure prohibiting certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC is warranted. 39

Given PM2BTC's extensive association with suspected illicit activity and illicit actors, FinCEN assesses that imposing a prohibition on certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC is necessary to safeguard U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system, as well as serve key U.S. national security objectives. In light of the predominant percentage of transactions linked to known or suspected illicit activity processed through PM2BTC, prohibiting certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC will insulate the U.S. financial system from international money laundering and other financial crimes.

In particular, prohibiting certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC will further ongoing U.S. efforts to curtail suspected Russian-associated illicit activity and financial transactions. Targeting illicit proceeds obtained by ransomware actors, especially those with a nexus to Russia, is, for instance, a high priority for the United States. Recent actions by FinCEN, OFAC, and intergovernmental task forces have also focused on Russia-related illicit finance threats. Prohibiting certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC will serve the United States' national security and foreign policy interests by protecting U.S. businesses and interests from known ransomware threat actors, by publicly countering a financing mechanism used by illicit entities, including entities that seek to further the Russian state's aims of political and economic destabilization. Similarly, such a prohibition would sever a pathway that might facilitate circumvention of U.S. economic sanctions, supporting the efficacy of U.S. sanctions and complementing previous actions taken by the U.S. government.

Additionally, this action reinforces the expectations of AML/CFT compliance in the virtual asset ecosystem in order to improve the identification and reporting of suspicious activity by financial institutions around the world.

FinCEN assesses that prohibiting certain transmittal of funds involving PM2BTC will impose limited burdens on legitimate activities currently transacted through PM2BTC and, indeed, will have a positive systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system.

By U.S. and international standards, PM2BTC represents a limited percentage of total received BTC (directly and indirectly). As of April 15, 2024, PM2BTC's total received value was between .0002 and 0.0014 percent (respectively) of the largest U.S.-domiciled CVC VASP (hereinafter referred to as “VASP 1”). PM2BTC's transaction history with VASP 1 totals just over $32 million in CVC over nearly 11 years. By contrast, a CVC price and volume aggregator estimates that VASP 1 processed more than $3 billion in transfers daily   40 as of April 17, 2024. By comparison, PM2BTC's largest U.S.-based counterparty (hereinafter referred to as “VASP 2”) sent approximately $147 million worth of CVC to PM2BTC between 2018 and 2024, which amounted to approximately 0.002 percent of VASP 2's overall sending activity. As such, there is no evidence that PM2BTC is a major participant in the international payment system or relied upon by the international banking community. Indeed, given its size and limited international presence, the legitimate business services that it offers would be readily available through other regulated institutions. Further, as noted in the February 16, 2022, Financial Stability Board's Assessment of Risks to Financial Stability, direct connections between CVC as a whole, and systemically important financial institutions and core financial markets, are limited at present. Volatility and disruptions in the CVC ecosystem have been contained within the CVC markets and have not significantly spilled over to financial markets and infrastructures. 41

Given widespread availability of other VASP services, as well as PM2BTC's predominant use for suspected illicit activity, imposing a prohibition on certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC will merely remove from transaction chains a VASP that facilitates illicit or otherwise unduly risky transactions that pose a risk to the international financial system. This action will not have an adverse impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system or on legitimate business activities currently involving PM2BTC.

Moreover, FinCEN assesses that imposing a prohibition on certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC will not present a significant competitive disadvantage for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States given PM2BTC's relatively small size and the relatively limited burden that compliance with this order would impose. Given the small size of PM2BTC and the comparatively low value of activity between U.S. financial institutions and PM2BTC, FinCEN assesses that this would impose neither an undue cost nor substantial burden these financial institutions. Further, compliance with the prohibition on certain transmittals of funds set out in this order requires no tools or competencies other than those already employed by domestic financial institutions to maintain their current AML/CFT compliance programs. In order to ensure that is the case, FinCEN has elected to provide within this order for the rejection of certain transmittals of CVC that are received from or originate at PM2BTC and outline the steps a covered financial institution should take in such circumstances.

In providing for the rejection of CVC under certain limited circumstances, FinCEN acknowledges that, at this time, there are technological limitations that may limit or preclude covered financial institutions from declining CVC transfers originating at addresses outside of their control, and compliant institutions may find themselves in receipt of CVC from PM2BTC despite a desire and effort to limit such exposure. 42 This order allows covered financial institutions the flexibility to act with discretion based on the facts and circumstances of a particular transaction and comply with this order, even where the originating address is no longer accessible, where, for example, (1) CVC transfers originated from PM2BTC but were held for an extended period of time in an unhosted wallet, or (2) the covered financial institution's risk mitigation procedures would preclude returning funds to PM2BTC. Moreover, by providing for the rejection of CVC, this order ensures that covered financial institutions will not be subject to an undue cost or burden associated with compliance.

FinCEN considered other special measures available pursuant to section 9714 prior to selecting the prohibition reflected in this order. 43 However, prohibiting certain transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC is the only means of adequately addressing the money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance posed by PM2BTC.

In particular, none of the special measures described in 31 U.S.C. 5318A would effectively address the illicit finance threat posed by PM2BTC. 44 Any additional recordkeeping, information collection, or reporting requirements, as described in 31 U.S.C 5318A(b)(1)-(4), would be insufficient to guard against the risks posed by covered financial institutions processing transmittals of funds involving PM2BTC. Such measures may allow such transfers to continue to benefit of illicit actors connected to Russian illicit finance. Further, placing conditions upon or prohibiting the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or payable-through account by any domestic financial institution or domestic financial agency for or on behalf of a foreign banking institution, as described in 31 U.S.C 5318A(b)(5), is similarly inadequate because the types of CVC transactions that PM2BTC facilitates do not rely on correspondent or payable-through accounts, and FinCEN is unaware of such relationships between PM2BTC and U.S. or foreign financial institutions. In addition, PM2BTC's recordkeeping is incomplete, so imposing additional recordkeeping requirements is not likely to be successful or sufficient to address the risks it poses. For these reasons, FinCEN assesses that the prohibition on certain transmittals of funds, including CVC, involving PM2BTC is the most appropriate special measure.

Pursuant to section 9714, the Secretary may impose specified special measures, including a prohibition on certain transmittals of funds, “by order, regulation or otherwise as permitted by law.” In determining the appropriate approach in this instance, FinCEN considered imposing special measures by order or regulation. Although PM2BTC is not a large participant in the international payment system, FinCEN determined that proceeding by an order is the most appropriate course of action given the imminent threats posed by the illicit actors whose transactions and access to funds PM2BTC facilitates as well as the ongoing transactions associated with suspected illicit activity that continue to be processed through PM2BTC.

A copy of this order will be published in the Federal Register . To the extent PM2BTC or other parties have information relevant to this order, they may submit it to FinCEN at frc@fincen.gov.

The order defines PM2BTC, a CVC exchanger comprised of a collection of the services PM2BTC.ME, BTC2PM.ME, PM2CASHIN.ME, BTC2CASHIN.ME, PM2WM.ME, and BTC2WM.ME, to mean all subsidiaries, branches, and offices of PM2BTC operating in any jurisdiction, as well as any successor entity.

The order defines convertible virtual currency (CVC) as a medium of exchange that either has an equivalent value as currency, or acts as a substitute for currency, but lacks legal tender status. Despite having legal tender status in at least one jurisdiction, for the purpose of this order, Bitcoin is included as a type of CVC.

The order defines a covered financial institution as having the same meaning as “financial institution” in 31 CFR 1010.100(t).

The order defines a CVC exchanger as any person engaged as a business in the exchange of CVC for fiat currency, funds, or other CVC.

The order defines recipient as the person to be paid by the recipient's covered financial institution.

The order defines successor entity as any person that replaces PM2BTC by acquiring its assets, in whole or in part, and/or carrying out the affairs of PM2BTC under a new name.

The order defines transmittal of funds as the sending and receiving of funds, including CVC.

All terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in 31 CFR Chapter X and 31 U.S.C. 5312.

A covered financial institution is prohibited from engaging in a transmittal of funds from or to PM2BTC, or from or to any account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of PM2BTC.

A covered financial institution will be deemed not to have violated this Order where, upon determining that it received CVC that originated from PM2BTC or from an account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of PM2BTC, that covered financial institution rejects the transaction, preventing the intended recipient from accessing such CVC and returning the CVC to PM2BTC, or to the account or CVC address from which the CVC originated.

The terms of this order are effective October 11, 2024, with no cessation date.

FinCEN reserves its authority pursuant to section 9714 to impose conditions on certain transmittals of funds from or to PM2BTC, or from or to any account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of PM2BTC.

Nothing in this order shall be construed to modify, impair, or otherwise affect any requirements or obligations to which a covered financial institution is subject pursuant to the BSA, including, but not limited to, the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), or other applicable laws or regulations, such as the sanctions administered and enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The covered financial institution, and any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, may be liable for civil or criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. 5321 and 5322 for violating any of the terms of this order. 45

Any judicial determination that any provision of this order is invalid shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this order, and each other provision shall thereafter remain in full force and effect.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking PATCOM Patrol Commander § Section SLR Special Local Regulation U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The marine event sponsor of a boat parade is expecting to draw a high concentration of vessels to the Norfolk Harbor area along the proposed parade route. Traditionally, the Norfolk Harbor area serves as a major thoroughfare for commercial traffic, naval operations, ferry routes, and several other recreational uses through the connecting waters of the James River, Elizabeth River, and Lower Chesapeake Bay. The Coast Guard is establishing a Special Local Regulation (SLR) to monitor the parade before, during, and after the event to minimize impacts on this congested waterway. We must promulgate this rule by October 20, 2024, to ensure the safety of individuals, property, and the marine environment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM, consider comments, and publish a final rule before this rule needs to be in place to serve its purpose. This rule is necessary to accommodate the number of vessels expected to participate in the boat parade.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because prompt action is needed to respond to the potentially significant increase in vessel traffic not local to the area and to the risks associated with large congregations of vessels navigating unfamiliar waters.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. Captains of the Port are authorized by 33 CFR 100.35 to issue SLRs. The Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Virginia has determined that potential hazards associated with the proposed parade starting October 20, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the parade route. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the SLR during the enforcement period of this rule.

This rule establishes an SLR from noon until 4 p.m. on October 20, 2024. The SLR will cover all navigable waters within the Elizabeth River from shoreline to shoreline beginning in the vicinity of the Craney Island Flats, proceeding south through the Norfolk Harbor Reaches, and ending at the Waterside District in Norfolk, Virginia, to promote safety along the “Mid-Atlantic Trump Boat Parade” route. The southern boundaries of the SLR are bound by the following fixed structures: all waters north of the I-264 Norfolk/Portsmouth (Downtown Tunnel), east of the West Norfolk Bridge and west of the Berkley Bridge. This SLR will also temporarily establish the southern area of Anchorage N (Hospital Point) as a First Amendment area(where people may lawfully assemble and convey their message in a safe manner to their intended audience), to be used at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) as a spectator area.

The duration of the SLR has been tailored to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters when the parade is scheduled to occur, while minimizing the burden on routine vessel traffic. Vessels or persons entering the SLR during the enforcement period are subject to the direction and control of the on-scene PATCOM, as designated and specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Virginia.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on two considerations. The special local regulation will be enforced for only four hours on one day. Also, persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area or anchor in the spectator area, during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP Virginia or a designated representative, who will be onsite to direct the movement of vessels such that unsafe conditions are avoided but will otherwise not interfere with commercial vessels or normal traffic in the area.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, do not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's provisions do not apply here.

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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 This rule involves an SLR lasting only 6 hours that will monitor entry to the SLR for the duration of the enforcement period to cover before, during and after the parade has concluded. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels. All non-participant vessels or persons engaged in protest activity will be directed to the southern part of Anchorage N (Hospital Point) if they wish to remain in the regulated area.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

On July 3, 2024 (89 FR 55136), the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Mexico. The NPRM proposed approval of the state's periodic emissions inventory for Sunland Park, Doña Ana County, New Mexico marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 NAAQS. The background for this action and rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. We received a comment on our proposal from the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). Our response to the comment follows.

We received one comment from the NMED regarding an inadvertent typographical error in the NPRM—in tables 1 and 2 that summarized the NO X and VOC emissions in Sunland Park, Doña Ana County, New Mexico. The ozone season daily emissions (lb/day) column in the NPRM showed some discrepancies from what was submitted by the State. In response, the EPA is making the necessary corrections in the updated tables 1, and 2 listed below. The corrected values in fact are less than what was previously listed in tables 1 and 2 of the proposed action. This correction does not change or affect the total NO X or VOC emissions in the 2020 periodic emission inventory for Sunland Park marginal nonattainment area for a typical ozone season day. Additionally, the original tables were included in the State's SIP revision submittal, 1 in the rulemaking docket.

NMED had another remark stating that no public hearing was conducted for this rulemaking. EPA confirms that in section III of the proposal, we stated that “ New Mexico notified the public in both English and Spanish and offered the opportunity for comment and public hearing. A full record of public notices is included in the state's submittal. New Mexico did not receive any comments during the 30-day public comment period or request for public hearing ”.

We are approving the New Mexico SIP revisions submitted on December 20, 2023, to address the periodic ozone season daily and annual ozone precursor emission inventories for NO X and VOC for the Sunland Park, Doña Ana County, New Mexico, nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The EPA reviewed demographic data, which provides an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within the approximate 13.86 square miles contained in the portion of the ozone nonattainment area within Sunland Park, New Mexico. The complete report is available in the public docket for this action. The Environmental Justice Index for eight of the twelve EJScreen indicators exceed the 80th percentile in the United States; seven of the twelve EJScreen indicators exceed the 80th percentile in the State of New Mexico. Five of the twelve indicators exceed the 90th percentile in both the State of New Mexico and the United States, including indices for particulate matter 2.5, ozone, air toxics cancer risk, air toxics respiratory, and wastewater discharge. This analysis showed an approximate population of 17,408 residents based on the 2017-2021 Census. Within this area, EJScreen identified that approximately 95% of the population are people of color with 58% identified as low income. Additionally, approximately 34% of the population is linguistically isolated and 30% of the population has less than a high school education.

This action is to approve the periodic emission inventory for Sunland Park 2015 ozone nonattainment area, in which updated air emissions data in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is available on EPA public web page. This action is not anticipated to have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• 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 et seq. );

• 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.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

The New Mexico Environmental Department did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP revision submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to 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.

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).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 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).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

This action corrects regulatory text errors resulting from inadvertent errors in the amendatory instructions in final rulemakings affecting 40 CFR part 52. This action does not change any final action taken by the EPA in a previously published final rule. This action merely corrects regulatory text to properly codify the EPA's previously published final rulemakings. An explanation of each correction is listed below.

On March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16289), the EPA published a direct final rule that, among other actions, approved Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 74.31, “Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact Lubricants,” adopted on November 12, 2013, as a revision to the California SIP. However, there was a typographic error in the amendatory instructions. The instructions for adding paragraph 52.220(c)(441)(i)(C)( 2 ) inadvertently omitted the rule number from the text to be added. The EPA is correcting the text for paragraph 52.220(c)(441)(i)(C)( 2 ) in this action.

On September 28, 2022 (87 FR 58729), the EPA published a final rule approving four permitting rules submitted as a revision to the San Diego County APCD portion of the California SIP. 1 The revision concerned San Diego APCD Rule 11, “Exemptions From Rule 10 Permit Requirements,” Rule 20.1, “New Source Review—General Provisions,” Rule 20.3, “New Source Review—Major Stationary Sources and PSD Stationary Sources,” and Rule 20.4, “New Source Review—Portable Emission Units.” However, the text of the newly added paragraphs to codify the replacement of the previously-approved versions of these rules inadvertently listed the incorrect adoption dates for the replaced rules. In this action, the EPA is correcting the rule adoption dates appearing in 52.220(c)(488)(i)(A)( 6 ), (c)(539)(i)(A)( 5 ), (c)(539)(i)(A)( 6 ), and (c)(539)(i)(A)( 7 ).

On February 9, 2024 (89 FR 8999), the EPA published a final rule approving a revision to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) portion of the California SIP. This revision concerned regulations and a certification procedure for certification of vapor recovery systems for gasoline cargo tanks. However, there was a typographic error in the amendatory instructions for codifying the CARB regulation and the certification procedure. The date of the submittal letter listed in the corresponding entries for this revision in 40 CFR 52.220a(c) table 1 and table 2 should have been September 8, 2023, rather than September 21, 2023. The EPA is correcting this date in this action.

On April 14, 2022 (87 FR 22135), the EPA published a final rule that, among other actions, approved Maricopa County Ordinance P-26, “Residential Burning Restrictions,” revised October 23, 2019, as a revision to the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP. However, the amendatory instructions erroneously added an entry for Ordinance P-26 to table 4 of 40 CFR 52.120(c), rather than replacing the previously-approved entry for Maricopa County Ordinance P-26 in table 6 of 40 CFR 52.120(c). The EPA is correcting this error in this action.

The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because the underlying rules for which these correcting amendments have been prepared were already subject to 30-day comment periods. Further, this action is consistent with the purposes and rationales of the final rules for which inaccurate amendatory instructions are being corrected herein. Because this action does not change the EPA's analyses or overall actions, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and comment are unnecessary.

The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for these corrections to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects inaccurate amendatory instructions in previous rulemakings. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for these corrections to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, for this action to become effective on the date of publication. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency is correcting 40 CFR part 52 by making the following correcting amendments:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Regulations III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) delineates regulations for air pollution emissions that can adversely impact public health. Section 111(d) of the CAA sets standards of performance for existing sources of air pollution, specifically pertaining to the remaining useful life of a source. Air pollutants subject to this section are those which are not already regulated as air quality criteria pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7408(a) or hazardous air pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7412. Section 111(d) requires States to submit a plan to EPA for approval that establishes the standards of performance and provides for their implementation and enforcement. EPA prescribes a Federal plan in the cases that a State does not submit a State plan or the submitted State plan is disapproved. If a State has no designated facilities for a standards of performance source category, it may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a State plan for that source category according to 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06.

The Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD (CISWI Emission Guidelines or subpart DDDD) regulate existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (CISWIs) and air curtain incinerators (ACIs). A CISWI is defined at § 60.2875 as “any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241.” The structure of a CISWI includes, but is not limited to, a solid waste feed system, a grate system, a flue gas system, a waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. An ACI is defined at § 60.2875 as “an incinerator that operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or pit in which combustion occurs. Incinerators of this type can be constructed above or below ground and with or without refractory walls and floor.” Existing units are CISWIs and ACIs that: (1) commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999 and that were not modified or reconstructed after June 1, 2001; (2) commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but no later than June 4, 2010, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 1, 2001 but no later than August 7, 2013; or (3) commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 4, 2010 but no later than August 7, 2013.

The air quality programs Administrator of a State subject to subpart DDDD must submit a State plan to EPA that implements the CISWI Emission Guidelines via § 60.2505. A State with no existing units is required to submit a negative declaration letter in place of the State plan in accordance with § 60.2510. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) submitted a negative declaration to EPA on May 3, 2018, certifying that there are no existing sources in the State subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. Likewise, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) submitted a negative declaration for subpart DDDD to EPA on December 18, 2018.

EPA is approving the negative declarations submitted by ME DEP and MassDEP serving in lieu of their CAA 111(d) State plans for the CISWI Emission Guidelines to satisfy the requirements of §§ 60.23(b) and 62.06.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the negative declarations should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective December 10, 2024 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by November 12, 2024.

If EPA receives such comments, we will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on December 10, 2024 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comments on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of adverse comments.

Under the CAA, the Administrator has the authority to approve a 111(d) negative declaration in lieu of a State plan that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. See 40 CFR 62.06. In reviewing 111(d) negative declaration letters, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA and of EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 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 et seq. );

• 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 et seq. );

• 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 CAA.

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. As such, it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section in this issue of the Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

In this document EPA is amending appendix IX to part 261 to reflect a change in the ownership and name of a particular facility. This action documents the transfer of ownership and name change by updating appendix IX to incorporate the change in owner's name for the Bayer Material Science LLC, Baytown, TX facility for the exclusion from hazardous waste (K027) (K104) (K111) and (K112) from the wastewater treatment plant. The exclusion or “delisting” was granted to Bayer Material Science LLC on July 25, 2005 (see 70 FR 49187). The EPA has been notified that the transfer of ownership of the Bayer Material Science LLC, Baytown, TX facility to Covestro Industrial Park Baytown occurred on September 1st 2015. Covestro has certified that it plans to comply with all the terms and conditions set forth in the delisting and will not change the characteristics of the wastes subject to the exclusion at the Baytown, TX facility. This action documents the change by updating appendix IX to incorporate a change in name.

The changes to appendix IX to part 261 are effective October 11, 2024. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. As described above, the facility has certified that it is prepared to comply with the requirements of the exclusion. Therefore, a six-month delay in the effective date is not necessary in this case. This provides the basis for making this amendment effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 553(d). The EPA has determined that having a proposed rulemaking and public comment on this change is unnecessary, as it involves only a change in company ownership, with all of the same delisting requirements remaining in effect.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:

This document announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(9)(i)(F), (a)(10) and (11), and (d)(3) on September 26, 2024. In the TCPA Consent Order, the Commission concluded that the appropriate timeframe for implementation of these amended rules is six months following publication in the Federal Register of notice that OMB has completed any required review of the adopted rules. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effect date of these rules.

The full text of document FCC 24-24 is available online at FCC-24-24A1.pdf. To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).