Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This action extends the prohibition against certain flight operations in the Baghdad Flight Information Region (FIR) (ORBB) at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 320 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier, for an additional three years, from October 26, 2024, to October 26, 2027. The FAA finds this action necessary to address the unacceptable level of risk to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 from Iranian-aligned militia groups' (IAMGs') activities and third-party military operations that are not likely to be effectively deconflicted with civil aviation. The FAA also republishes the approval process and exemption information for this Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.
This final rule is effective October 16, 2024.
Bill Petrak, Flight Standards Service, through the Washington Operations Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3203; email
This action extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 77, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 91.1605, from October 26, 2024, to October 26, 2027. SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, prohibits certain flight operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA finds this action necessary to address significant, unacceptable safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 due to IAMGs' activities and third-party military operations that are not likely to be effectively deconflicted with civil aviation. Consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, this action also republishes the approval process and exemption information for this flight prohibition SFAR.
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. Sections 106(f) and (g) of title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), subtitle I, establish the FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
The FAA is promulgating this rule under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, from conducting flight operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final rule.
Section 553(b)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, 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.” Also, section 553(d) permits agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to issue rules with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and the delayed effective date because they would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Providing notice and the opportunity for the public to comment here would be impracticable. The FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, need to include appropriate boundaries that reflect the agency's current understanding of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to protect the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without over-restricting or under-restricting U.S. operators' routing options. However, the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace managed by other countries with respect to safety of flight is fluid in circumstances involving fighting, violent extremist and militant activity, or periods of heightened tensions, particularly where weapons capable of targeting or otherwise negatively affecting U.S. civil aviation are or may
While the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the boundaries of the area in which unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation existed might change due to: evolving military or political circumstances; violent extremist and militant group activity; the introduction, removal, or repositioning of more advanced anti-aircraft weapon systems; or other factors. As a result, if the situation improved while the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule the FAA finalized might be over-restrictive, unnecessarily limiting U.S. operators' routing options and potentially causing them to incur unnecessary additional fuel and operations-related costs, as well as potentially causing passengers to incur unnecessarily some costs attributed to their time. Conversely, if the situation deteriorated while the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule the FAA finalized might be under-restrictive, allowing U.S. civil aviation to continue operating in areas where unacceptable risks to their safety had developed. Such an outcome would endanger the safety of these aircraft, as well as their passengers and crews, exposing them to unacceptable risks of death, injury, and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
Alternatively, if the FAA made changes to the area in which U.S. civil aviation operations would be prohibited between a notice of proposed rulemaking and a final rule due to changed conditions, the version of the rule the public commented on would no longer reflect the FAA's current assessment of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation.
In addition, seeking comment would be contrary to the public interest because some of the rational basis for the rulemaking is based upon classified information and controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release. In order to meaningfully provide comment on a proposal, the public would need access to the basis for the agency's decision-making, which the FAA cannot provide. Disclosing classified information or controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release in order to seek meaningful comment on the proposal would harm the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA meaningfully seeking comment on the proposal is contrary to the public interest.
Therefore, providing notice and the opportunity for comment would be impracticable as it would hinder the FAA's ability to maintain appropriate flight prohibitions based on up-to-date risk assessments of the risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace managed by other countries. It would also be contrary to the public interest, as the FAA cannot protect classified information and controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release and meaningfully seek public comment.
For the same reasons discussed above, the potential safety impacts and the need for prompt action on up-to-date information that is not public would make delaying the effective date impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.
On October 26, 2018, the FAA published a final rule in the
IAMGs also had access to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and anti-aircraft capable weapons systems, including the Iranian-produced 358 loitering hybrid surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, which presented inadvertent risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 and at potentially targeted airports. IAMGs likely lacked the ability to conduct effective target identification and airspace de-confliction, increasing the risk of an accidental shootdown of a civil aircraft due to misidentification or miscalculation.
In addition, at the time of the 2022 final rule, the FAA remained concerned about cross-border military activity. Both Iran and Türkiye previously had conducted various no-notice cross-border operations striking targets in northern Iraq using a variety of weapons, including short-range ballistic missiles, rockets, and weaponized UAS. In general, unannounced third-party cross-border operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) presented a low altitude safety-of-flight risk for aircraft flying in the vicinity of the targeted location(s) and for aircraft on the ground at airports co-located with, or in close proximity to, the intended targets. These activities also posed an airspace de-confliction challenge. Additionally, there continued to be an inadvertent risk to civil aviation operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) from global positioning system (GPS) jammers.
The FAA continues to assess the situation in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 as presenting an unacceptable risk to the safety of U.S. civil aviation. The security environment in Iraq remains challenging due to the resumption of IAMGs' attack operations against U.S. and coalition forces in the region and attempted long-range attacks on Israeli interests originating from or transiting the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) since the October 2023 start of the Israel-Gaza conflict. In addition to the increased IAMG attack operations, third-party military forces have conducted
Following the October 2023 start of the Israel-Gaza conflict, IAMGs operating from Iraq have launched numerous attacks targeting U.S. and coalition forces located across the region using a variety of weapons, from indirect fire weapons to weaponized UAS. Such attacks pose risks to civil aviation operations during low altitude phases of flight and to aircraft and infrastructure at targeted installations often collocated at airports or airfields in Iraq. IAMGs have also claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against Israel, launching missiles and weaponized UAS from Iraq, underscoring continued safety-of-flight risk concerns in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
Furthermore, IAMGs maintain access to a variety of anti-aircraft weapons systems, including man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and Iranian-produced loitering SAM systems. IAMGs claimed to have downed a U.S.-operated MQ-9 surveillance platform in mid-January 2024, likely using an Iranian-provided advanced anti-aircraft weapons system. This incident highlights potential non-state actor use of an advanced anti-aircraft weapons system, likely without full access to a complete airspace picture. This likely lack of a complete airspace picture—including civil aviation operations transiting north-south along heavily traveled international air routes over eastern Iraq—coupled with likely insufficient training on an advanced anti-aircraft weapons system, demonstrates the potential for significant inadvertent risk concerns for U.S. civil aviation operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
Since the 2022 extension of the SFAR, uncoordinated and often unannounced third-party military operations into Iraq or transiting the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) have also continued, including Turkish counter-Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) opposition operations in northern Iraq incorporating a variety of weapons systems. Recent negotiations between the Turkish and Iraqi governments may also pave the way for expanded Turkish military operations into northern Iraq. In January 2024, Iran launched attacks from western Iran on targets in northern Iraq and launched attacks transiting the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) enroute to targets in Syria. Prior to the Iranian cross-border operations, there was no NOTAM issued advising operators of the potential risks to civil aviation associated with the weapons activity, nor did Iraq issue a NOTAM during the Iranian weapons activity. In mid-April 2024, Iran launched hundreds of cruise and ballistic missiles and one-way attack UAS during a massive attempted retaliatory strike on Israel, with some of the launched weapons transiting the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) while enroute to the intended targets in Israel. The FAA acknowledges Iraq issued a NOTAM prior to the Iranian attempted strikes on Israel, mitigating the risks to civil aviation operations in that particular instance. However, Iraq has not consistently issued NOTAMs for previous third-party operations into the Baghdad FIR (ORBB). Furthermore, images posted to social media later in April appeared to show debris discovered south of Baghdad, possibly associated with an alleged Israeli counterstrike on Iran and underscoring the multifaceted risks of cross-border military operations to civil aviation operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
Therefore, as a result of the significant, continuing, unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320, the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, from October 26, 2024, until October 26, 2027.
Further amendments to SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, might be appropriate if the risk to U.S. civil aviation safety and security changes. In this regard, the FAA will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which persons described in paragraph (a) of this rule might be able to operate safely in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
The FAA also republishes the details concerning the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, to enable interested persons to refer to this final rule for comprehensive information about requesting relief from the FAA from the provisions of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605.
In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320. If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or conduct other operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, to conduct such operations.
The requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality must submit the request for approval to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality.
The requestor must send the request to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) the requester expects the SFAR to cover on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality seeks FAA approval, and it must describe—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;
• The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will provide;
• To the extent known, the specific locations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land; and
• The method by which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (
The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320. The requestor may identify additional operators to the FAA at any time after the FAA issues its approval. Neither the operators listed in the original request, nor any operators the requestor subsequently seeks to add to the approval, may commence operations under the approval until the FAA issues them an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, for operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320. The approval conditions discussed below apply to all operators. Requestors should contact the Washington Operations Center by telephone at (202) 267-3203 or by email at
If an approval request includes classified information or controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release, requestors may contact the Washington Operations Center for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. The Washington Operations Center's contact information appears in the
FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of the responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificates, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.
If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety organization will send an approval letter to the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.
(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:
(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320; and
(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
(3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those the FAA might impose in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy the FAA issues under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request and any operators the requestor subsequently adds to the approval, authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s). In addition, as stated in paragraph (3) of this section V.B., the FAA notes that it may include additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter in any OpSpec or LOA associated with a particular operator operating under this approval, as necessary in the interests of aviation safety. U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities requesting FAA approval on behalf of entities with which they have a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement should request a copy of the relevant OpSpec or LOA directly from the entity with which they have any of the foregoing types of arrangements, if desired.
Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues through the approval process set forth previously may only occur in accordance with an exemption from SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those described in the approval process in the previous section. To determine whether a petition for exemption from the prohibition this SFAR establishes
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;
• The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will provide;
• The specific locations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land;
• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (
• The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations to support the relief sought and demonstrate that granting such relief would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.
The FAA includes, as a condition of each such exemption it issues, a release and agreement to indemnify, as described previously.
The FAA recognizes that, with the support of the U.S. Government, the governments of other countries could plan operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605. While the FAA will not permit these operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and in accordance with the order of preference set forth in paragraph (c) of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605.
If a petition for exemption includes information that is sensitive for security reasons or proprietary information, requestors may contact the Washington Operations Center for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. The Washington Operations Center's contact information is listed in the
Congress authorized the FAA by statute to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. 49 U.S.C. 44701. Consistent with that mandate, the FAA is prohibiting certain persons from conducting flight operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations. The purpose of this rule is to operate holistically in addressing a range of hazards and needs in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320. However, the FAA recognizes that certain provisions focus on unique factors. Therefore, the FAA finds that the various provisions of this final rule are severable and able to operate functionally if severed from each other. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of this final rule's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand, thus allowing the FAA to continue to fulfill its Congressionally authorized role of promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce.
Federal agencies consider the impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and comment for this final rule, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not require regulatory flexibility analyses regarding impacts on small entities. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.
This rule continues to prohibit U.S. civil flights in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320 due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in this preamble. The alternative flight routes result in some additional fuel and operations costs to the operators, as well as some costs attributed to passenger time. Accordingly, the incremental costs of the extension of this flight prohibition SFAR are minimal. By prohibiting unsafe flights, the benefits of this rule will exceed the minimal flight deviation costs. Therefore, the FAA finds that the incremental costs of extending SFAR No. 77, 14 CFR 91.1605, will be minimal and are exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries, and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after that section or any other law requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from risks to their operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320, a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $183 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens it imposes on the public. The FAA has determined no new requirement for information collection is associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA's policy is to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.
While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation.
The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-6(c), the FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination and has placed it in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132. The agency has determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this rule will not have federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211. The agency has determined it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and will not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609 promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
Except for classified and controlled unclassified material not authorized for public release, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this rulemaking.
Those documents may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the persons listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Iraq.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(e)
Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5).
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule revises the version date for the License Exception Implemented Export Controls (IEC) table posted on the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) website and replaces the long URL address for the table to a shorter and simpler URL address. BIS posted an updated table on September 17, 2024, that updated the eligible countries for License Exception IEC by adding Denmark, Finland, and Japan to appropriate items in the table.
This rule is effective October 16, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 16, 2024.
Office of National Security Controls, phone: 202-482-0092; email:
On August 27, 2024, the Office of the Federal Register approved an Incorporation By Reference (IBR) request submitted by BIS to post a table entitled “License Exception Implemented Export Controls (IEC) eligible items and destinations” on BIS' website. The table includes items and countries eligible for License Exception IEC, see § 740.24 of the EAR.
On September 5, 2024, BIS posted on its website updates to that table. The updates included changing the last modified date from “August 27, 2024” to “September 5, 2024”; changing the eligibility date for all the rows from “August 27, 2024” to “September 6, 2024” (which was the date of publication for the rule entitled “Commerce Control List Additions and Revisions; Implementation of Controls on Advanced Technologies Consistent with Controls Implemented by International Partners,” RIN 0694-AJ60 (89 FR 72926)); and correcting the misspelling of “eligibility” in the table title.
On September 17, 2024, BIS posted on its website an update to the table that added Denmark, Finland to the table, and modified the entries for Japan on the table for appropriate item eligibility to match the implementation by these countries.
Finally, this rule revises paragraph (c) of § 740.24 by revising the last modified date to September 17, 2024, and changing the URL to a simpler address of
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. In particular, and as noted elsewhere, Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Further, Section 1754(a)(1)-(16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1)-(16)) authorizes, inter alia, the establishment of a list of controlled items; the prohibition of unauthorized exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of controlled items; the requirement of licenses or other authorizations for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of controlled items; apprising the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment.
1. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects and distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits and of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This final rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be
• 0694-0088, “Simplified Network Application Processing System,” which carries a burden- hour estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;
• 0694-0137 “License Exceptions and Exclusions,” which carries a burden-hour estimate average of 1.5 hours per submission (Note: submissions for License Exceptions are rarely required);
• 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden-hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and
• 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden-hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.
Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at
3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation and delay in effective date.
5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Accordingly, part 740 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
(c)
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding eight persons to the Unverified List (UVL). Of the eight persons being added, three are under the destination of China, People's Republic of (China); two are under the destination of Germany; one is under the destination of Pakistan; and two are under the destination of Türkiye. BIS is also amending the EAR by removing two persons from the UVL. Of the two persons being removed, one is under the destination of Saudi Arabia, and the other is under the destination of China.
This rule is effective October 16, 2024.
Deniz Muslu, Director, Office of Enforcement Analysis, Phone: (202) 482-4255, Email:
The Unverified List (UVL), found in supplement no. 6 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774), contains the names and addresses of foreign persons who are or have been parties to a transaction, as described in § 748.5 of the EAR, involving the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR. These foreign persons are added to the UVL because BIS or federal officials acting on BIS's behalf were unable to verify their
There are any number of reasons why these checks cannot be completed to the satisfaction of the U.S. Government. The reasons include, but are not limited to: (1) reasons unrelated to the cooperation of the foreign party subject to the end-use check (
BIS's inability to confirm the
As provided in § 740.2(a)(17) of the EAR, the use of license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL is suspended. Additionally, under § 744.15(b) of the EAR, there is a requirement for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to obtain (and maintain a record of) a UVL statement from a party or parties to a transaction who are listed on the UVL before proceeding with exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to such persons, when the items to be exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) are not subject to a license requirement. Finally, pursuant to § 758.1(b)(8), Electronic Export Information (EEI) must be filed in the Automated Export System (AES) for all exports of tangible items subject to the EAR where parties to the transaction, as described in § 748.5(d) through (f), are listed on the UVL.
Requests for the removal of a UVL entry must be made in accordance with § 744.15(d) of the EAR. Decisions regarding the removal or modification of UVL entry will be made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, based on a demonstration by the listed person of their
This rule adds eight persons to the UVL by amending supplement no. 6 to part 744 of the EAR to include their names and addresses. BIS is adding these persons pursuant to § 744.15(c) of the EAR. This final rule implements the decision to add the following eight persons located in the following destinations to the UVL: Hengye Technology Co., Ltd.; Skytop Electronics Ltd.; and YXS Technology Co., Ltd., under the destination of China; Arabian Aviation Trade Group and Tiptrans Limited, under the destination of Germany; Marshal Traders, under the destination of Pakistan; and Pegasus Technic Services and Vast Polymers, Ambalaj Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, under the destination of Türkiye.
This rule removes two persons from the UVL because BIS was able to verify their
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this final rule. In particular, section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Further, section 1754(a)(1)-(16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1)-(16)) authorizes, inter alia, requiring measures for compliance with the export controls established under ECRA; requiring and obtaining such information from U.S. persons and foreign persons as is necessary to carry out ECRA; apprising the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment.
Shipments (1) that are removed from license exception eligibility or that are now subject to requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR as a result of this regulatory action; (2) that were eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license before this regulatory action; and (3) that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or enroute aboard a carrier to a port of export, on October 16, 2024, pursuant to actual orders, may proceed to that UVL listed person under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license and pursuant to the export clearance requirements set forth in part 758 of the EAR that applied prior to this person being listed on the UVL, so long as the items have been exported from the United States, reexported or transferred (in-country) before November 15, 2024. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight on November 15, 2024 are subject to the requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR in accordance with this rule.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The UVL additions contain collections of information approved by OMB under the following control numbers:
BIS believes that the overall increases in burdens and costs will be minimal
Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public participation.
Further, no other law requires notice of proposed rulemaking or opportunity for public comment for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
The additions read as follows:
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 4,000-acre “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley” American viticultural area (AVA) in Napa County, California. The newly-established AVA is located entirely within the existing North Coast and Napa Valley viticultural areas. TTB also is modifying the existing Calistoga AVA in response to comments received during the comment period. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
This final rule is effective November 15, 2024.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to the TTB Administrator through Treasury Order 120-01.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and, once approved, a name and a delineated boundary codified in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested party to petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
• If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Steven Burgess, president of Burgess Cellars, Inc., proposing to establish the “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley” AVA. Mr. Burgess submitted the petition on behalf of local vineyard owners and winemakers. The proposed AVA is located in Napa County, California, and lies entirely within the established North Coast (27 CFR 9.30) and Napa Valley (27 CFR 9.23) AVAs. Within the proposed AVA, there are approximately 30 commercial vineyards covering a total of approximately 230 acres. The distinguishing feature of the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA is its topography.
The petition describes the proposed AVA as an “all hillside” region with no
To the north of the proposed AVA, the elevations rise up to 2,200 feet within the established Howell Mountain AVA. The topography of the Howell Mountain AVA contains hillsides, like the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA, but also has a rolling, plateau-like feature at the summit. The region to the east of the proposed AVA has elevations like those of the proposed AVA, but the slopes have a more easterly to northeasterly exposure. South and west of the proposed AVA are the established St. Helena (27 CFR 9.149) and Calistoga (27 CFR 9.209) AVAs, which have lower elevations and include the flat lands along the floor of the Napa Valley. The petition describes slope angles within the established St. Helena AVA as mostly less than 5 percent, while the established Calistoga AVA is described as having “a multitude of * * * slopes, from steep mountains to benchlands to fans, to flat valley floors to riparian habitats.”
TTB published Notice No. 221 in the
In Notice No. 221, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA's location within the North Coast and Napa Valley AVAs, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition sufficiently differentiates it from the established AVAs. TTB also requested comments on whether the features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the established AVAs that the proposed AVA should no longer be part of one or the other, or both of, the established AVAs. The comment period originally closed May 1, 2023. TTB extended the comment period for an additional 60 days, until June 30, 2023, because of a request submitted during the comment period (comment 6). See Notice No. 221A, which published in the
TTB received 15 comments in response to Notices No. 221 and 221A. However, one comment was submitted in duplicate, so only 14 comments are posted to the public docket. One comment (comment 6) requested a 90-day extension of the comment period. In response to the request, the petitioner submitted a comment (comment 8) expressing his opposition to a comment period extension. In Notice No. 221A, TTB agreed to extend the comment period for an additional 60 days.
Eight comments (comments 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14) expressed support for the proposed AVA. Three of those comments (comments 4, 7, and 9) support the proposed AVA without suggesting any additional changes. Three of the supporting comments (comments 5, 11, 13, and 14) express support for the proposed AVA if certain changes to the boundary are made. These proposed changes, and TTB's response to the requests, are discussed later in this document. The original petitioner submitted a comment (comment 12) agreeing to the proposed boundary changes.
One comment (comment 1) does not specifically support or oppose the proposed AVA but instead expresses concern that an AVA designation would provide tax breaks for vineyard owners and other landowners within the area. The commenter also expressed concern that property taxes on other property owners in Napa County outside of the proposed AVA would increase to make up for the loss of tax revenue that tax breaks would cause. In response, the petitioner submitted a comment (comment 2) stating that California does not provide tax breaks for properties within an AVA. The comment goes on to say that “property in California is subject to Proposition 13 which establishes a base year assessed value upon purchase or new construction,” and the establishment of an AVA would not impact a property's “factored base year assessed value”.
Property taxes and tax assessments are local matters and are outside TTB's authority and the scope of this proposed rulemaking document. TTB's establishment of an AVA through the federal rulemaking process does not in itself have a tax effect.
Comment 3 also does not specifically express support for or opposition to the proposed AVA. The comment includes a link to a newspaper article about the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA. The commenter notes that the article's writer frequently refers to the proposed AVA simply as “Crystal Springs,” and appears to be concerned that truncating the name could lead to confusion. Instead, the commenter states that the writer “missed the opportunity to explain how an AVA that technically mentions another AVA in its name as Crystal Springs of Napa Valley might, does not lead to brand confusion.” In Notice No. 221, TTB proposed that the name “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley” be recognized as a name of viticultural significance. As TTB stated in that notice, TTB is not proposing to make “Crystal Springs” standing alone a term of viticultural significance, due to the number of other locations in the United States. that are known simply as “Crystal Springs.” Therefore, in this final rule, TTB is finalizing its proposal that only the full AVA name may appear as an appellation of origin on wine labels.
One commenter (comment 10) claims to be the “real owner of Chrystal [sic] Springs of Napa Valley” but provided no explanation or supporting information. TTB notes that designation of an AVA does not confer or change ownership of property within the AVA, and that there is no “owner” of an AVA. Establishment of an AVA simply permits winemakers to provide additional information to consumers about the origin of the grapes used to make their wine, and providing that information is voluntary. Any winemaker may label their wines with the AVA name as an appellation of
Comment 13, submitted by Napa Valley Vintners (NVV), proposes several changes to the boundary of the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA. The first change would remove a partial overlap with the established St. Helena AVA. As originally proposed, the southernmost portion of the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA boundary, which follows the 400-foot elevation contour, would partially overlap the St. Helena AVA. To remove the overlap, NVV suggests following the 400-foot elevation contour to the point where it meets the St. Helena city limits, which forms the boundary of the St. Helena AVA, and then following the city limits until they again intersect the 400-foot elevation. NVV notes that the St. Helena city limits are not shown on the 2015 USGS St. Helena quadrangle map the petitioner used to draw the proposed AVA boundary. Instead, NVV recommends using the version of the map that was used to create the St. Helena AVA boundary, which is the 1960 (revised 1993) version. Appellation St. Helena and the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA petitioner both submitted comments supporting the proposed boundary change (comments 5 and 12, respectively). TTB agrees with the comments and is amending the proposed boundary to eliminate the partial overlap with the established St. Helena AVA and to utilize the version of the USGS map that shows the St. Helena city limits.
In comment 13, NVV also requested substituting the 1960 (revised 1993) version of the St. Helena quadrangle map for the 2015 version to avoid the appearance of a second partial overlap with the St. Helena AVA. NVV notes that the 1960 version of the map shows the 400-foot elevation contour extending into the Bell Canyon reservoir, while the 2015 version stops the elevation contour at the reservoir's dam. The NVV states that, as a result, the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley's use of the 400-foot elevation contour for its boundary gives the appearance of a partial overlap with the St. Helena AVA at the reservoir. TTB notes that although the use of different versions of the map gives the appearance of a partial overlap, such an overlap does not actually exist because both the St. Helena AVA boundary description and the proposed AVA boundary description follow the 400-foot elevation contour. As such, even though the 2015 version of the map does not show the contour extending into the reservoir, the contour still exists, and the boundaries of both AVAs still follow it. As discussed earlier, TTB has agreed to adopt the older version of the map for the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA boundary description in order to use the St. Helena city limits to remove another partial overlap. Adopting the older map will also eliminate any confusion about the location of the St. Helena and proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVAs' boundaries near the Bell Canyon reservoir.
One comment (comment 11) requested a change to the proposed AVA boundary to fully include a vineyard, which is currently split between the proposed AVA and the established Calistoga AVA (27 CFR 9.209). The vineyard, known as the Crystal Springs Vineyard, sits along North Fork of Crystal Springs Road between the northwestern portion of the proposed AVA and the eastern portion of the Calistoga AVA. Approximately 11 acres of the vineyard are within the Calistoga AVA, and the remaining 6 acres are within the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA. The comment points out that the vineyard's name shows a current association with the proposed “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley” name. The comment also states that elevations within the vineyard are between 500 and 1,200 feet, which is within the range of elevations in the proposed AVA and higher than the floor of the Calistoga Valley, and it has a similar climate and hillside topography and soils as the proposed AVA.
The NVV comment (comment 13) also requests this boundary change and includes a letter from the Calistoga Wine Growers organization that supports the change. The NVV comment also suggests replacing the 2015 USGS Calistoga quadrangle map used to draw the proposed AVA with the 1997 version used to draw the original Calistoga AVA, to ensure that the proposed revisions to both boundaries refer to the same marked features and will align with the other maps used to make the remainder of the Calistoga AVA boundary. The proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA petitioner also submitted a comment (comment 12) expressing support for these changes.
After reviewing the comments and related documents, TTB is making this change to the boundaries of the Calistoga AVA and the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA so that the Crystal Springs Vineyard is located entirely within the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA.
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 221, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports establishing the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA with the boundary modifications requested in the comments. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley” AVA in Napa County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. TTB is also modifying the boundary of the established Calistoga AVA, as requested during the comment period, effective 30 days from the publication of this document.
TTB has also determined that the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA will remain part of the established North Coast and Napa Valley AVAs. As discussed in Notice No. 221, the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA shares some broad characteristics with the established AVAs. For example, the proposed AVA is comprised of hillside slopes, which also occur in the North Coast and Napa Valley AVAs, and it also has a marine-influenced climate. However, the proposed AVA lacks flat valleys, which are common in both the North Coast and Napa Valley AVAs, and it is not as influenced by the ocean as the more coastal regions of the North Coast AVA.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA and the modified Calistoga AVA boundary in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioners provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text. The Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA boundary and the modified Calistoga AVA boundary may also be viewed on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA, its name, “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not designating “Crystal Springs,” standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance due to the number of locations in the United States and elsewhere known as “Crystal Springs.”
The establishment of the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA will not affect the existing North Coast or Napa Valley AVAs, and any bottlers using “North Coast” or “Napa Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the North Coast or Napa Valley AVAs will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA will allow vintners to use “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley,” “Napa Valley,” and “North Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for these appellations.
After November 16, 2026, bottlers who use “Calistoga” as an appellation of origin on wines made primarily from grapes grown in the area that was removed from the Calistoga AVA will no longer be able to use “Calistoga” as an appellation of origin and would only be eligible to use “Crystal Springs of Napa Valley,” “North Coast,” “Napa Valley,” or a combination of these appellations as appellations of origin on those wines.
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(c) * * *
(8) Follows the 400-foot contour line easterly approximately 0.6 mile to its intersection with the eastern edge of the Calistoga map, denoted by a north-south longitude line labeled as longitude 122 degrees, 30 minutes;
(9) Continues north along the longitude line approximately 0.5 mile to its intersection with the 880-foot contour line in section 2, T8N/R6W;
(a)
(b)
(1) St. Helena, CA, 1960, revised 1993; and
(2) Calistoga, CA, 1997.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the St. Helena map at the intersection of Howell Mountain Road and White Cottage Road. From the beginning point, proceed southeasterly along Howell Mountain Road to its intersection with the St. Helena city limits in section 29, T8N/R5W; then
(2) Proceed west then south along the St. Helena city limits to its intersection with the 400-foot elevation contour along the western edge of section 29, T8N/R5W; then
(3) Proceed northwesterly along the 400-foot elevation contour to its intersection with the western edge of the St. Helena map, denoted by the north-south longitude line labeled as longitude 122 degrees, 30 minutes; then
(4) Proceed due north along the longitude line approximately 0.5 mile to its intersection with the 880-foot elevation contour in section 2, T8N/R6W; then
(5) Proceed northwesterly along the meandering 880-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Calistoga map, and continuing along the elevation contour (with a brief return to the St. Helena map) to its intersection with Biter Creek in the section 34, T9N/R6W, on the Calistoga map; then
(6) Proceed northerly (upstream) along Biter Creek to its intersection with the 1,400-foot elevation contour; then
(7) Proceed southeasterly along the meandering 1,400-foot elevation
(8) Proceed easterly along White Cottage Road for approximately 130 feet, returning to the beginning point.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily revising the operating schedule that governs the Southport (SR27) Bridge at mile 0.7 across Townsend Gut between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, ME. This action is necessary to allow Maine Department of Transportation (ME DOT) to conduct rehabilitation of the bridge. During the effective period, the bridge will be unable to open to marine traffic due to an operational imbalance while the work is being conducted.
This rule is effective without actual notice from October 16, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. on May 30, 2025. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on September 30, 2024 through October 16, 2024.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Gary Croot, First Coast Guard District, Project Officer, telephone 206-815-1364, email
On June 21, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), with a request for comments, entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Townsend Gut, Southport, ME”, in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Southport Swing Bridge carries Maine State Route 27 across Townsend Gut at mile 0.7 between Boothbay Harbor, ME and Southport, ME. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 10.0 feet at Mean High Water and 52.0 feet horizontal clearance when in the closed position. Waterway users include recreational boaters and commercial fishing vessels.
The existing drawbridge operating regulation is 33 CFR 117.537 and requires the bridge to open on request, except that from April 29 through September 30, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. the draw shall open on signal on the hour and half hour only, after an opening request is given.
ME DOT requested a temporary change to the regulation to allow the bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position so they can conduct bridge rehabilitation which includes replacing the bridge deck, and electrical and mechanical systems upgrades. The bridge will be unable to open to marine traffic due to an operational imbalance while the work is being conducted.
The public comment period opened on June 21, 2024, and closed on July 22, 2024. No public comments were received during the public comment period.
This temporary final rule will stay the current regulation in § 117.537, which requires the Southport (SR27) Bridge to open on request from October 1 through April 28. From April 29 through September 30, the bridge is required to open on request from 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. and on request on the hour and half hour only from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. This temporary final rule adds a temporary regulation in § 117.T538 to allow the bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position from September 30, 2024 through May 30, 2025. Vessels that can pass under the bridge while in the closed position may do so. Vessels that are too large to pass under the bridge while in the closed position may navigate around Southport Island.
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.
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, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability of vessels to use an alternate route. Vessels that are able to pass under the bridge while in the closed position may continue to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule
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 contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no 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 Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Appendix A, Table 1of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
The draw of the Southport (SR27) Bridge at mile 0.7 across Townsend Gut between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, Maine is allowed to remain closed to navigation.
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS or Service) published a proposed rulemaking in the
Comments are due on or before November 22, 2024.
Denise Ruggles, Executive Program Analyst, USDA, AMS, FGIS, Telephone: 816-702-3897, Email:
In the proposed rulemaking FR Doc. 2024-23192, on page 81396 in the issue of October 8, 2024, making the following correction in the preamble header. On page 81396, in the first column, correct the RIN to read: “0581-AE31.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, EC225LP, SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an unintentional activation of the hoist shear-button (shear-button) on the collective pitch handle during a night flight. This proposed AD would require checking the operation of the shear-button safety-cap on each applicable collective pitch handle and prohibit installing certain part-numbered collective pitch handles or collective sticks with those part-numbered collective pitch handles installed unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by December 2, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (404) 474-5548; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (404) 474-5548; email:
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0220, dated November 16, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0020), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Model AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 3555 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, AS 355 NP, SA 365 N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155 B, EC 155 B1, AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2, and EC 225 LP helicopters, all serial numbers equipped with hoist provisions (hoist fixed parts).
EASA AD 2022-0020 advises of a report of an inadvertent activation of the shear-button on a collective pitch handle. EASA AD 2022-0020 states this occurred during a night flight when the pilot was turning on the headlight adjacent to the shear-button, which is protected by a safety-cap that is fitted with a spring. Additionally, EASA AD 2022-0220 states that further investigation determined aging of the spring may have led to improper functioning of the safety-cap.
Accordingly, EASA AD 2022-0220 requires accomplishing an operational check of the shear-button safety-cap of each applicable collective pitch handle and, depending on the results, replacing the spring or deferring replacement of the spring by fabricating and installing a placard prohibiting use of the hoist during night flights, informing all flight crew, and operating the helicopter accordingly. EASA AD 2022-0220 also prohibits installing certain part-numbered collective pitch handles or certain part-numbered collective sticks with those part-numbered collective pitch handles installed unless the operational check and as applicable, corrective action is done, or it is a new collective pitch handle.
You may examine EASA AD 2022-0220 in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AS332-25.03.97, Revision 0, dated October 4, 2022; Airbus Helicopters ASB AS355-25.01.38, Revision 0, dated October 4, 2022; Airbus Helicopters ASB AS365-25.01.91, Revision 1, dated November 3, 2022; Airbus Helicopters ASB EC155-25A160, Revision 0, dated October 4, 2022; and Airbus Helicopters ASB EC225-25A293, Revision 0, dated October 4, 2022. This material specifies procedures for inspecting the spring of the shear-button safety-cap on the collective pitch handle to determine whether the safety-cap maintains either in a fully closed or fully open position. Depending on the results, this material specifies procedures for replacing an affected spring or attaching a label (placard) to prohibit night flights.
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are 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 its AD. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require checking the spring of the collective pitch handle for correct positioning of the shear-button safety-cap and, depending on the results, replacing the spring or deferring replacement of the spring and installing a placard and prohibiting night flying during the deferment. The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the check and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraphs of the proposed AD into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this check because it only involves lifting the safety-cap and verifying whether it automatically returns to an intended position. This check could be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.
This proposed AD would also prohibit installing certain part-numbered collective pitch handles or collective sticks with those part-numbered collective pitch handles installed unless the operational check and, as applicable, corrective action, is done, or it is a new collective pitch handle.
EASA AD 2022-0220 specifies a one-time inspection of the spring, whereas this proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the spring at intervals not to exceed 12 months time-in-service.
EASA AD 2022-0220 allows deferring replacement of a deficient spring provided that a placard prohibiting use of the hoist at night is installed, all flight crew are informed and, thereafter, that the helicopter is operated accordingly, whereas this proposed AD would not require informing any flight crew. Compliance with such requirements in an AD is impracticable to demonstrate or track on an ongoing basis; therefore, an AD requirement to inform all flight crew is unenforceable.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 66 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
Checking each safety-cap would take 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of up to $85 per helicopter and $5,610 for the U.S. fleet, per check cycle.
If required, replacing a spring would take 1 work-hour and parts would cost $25 for an estimated cost of $110 per replacement.
Fabricating and installing a placard would take 0.5 work-hour and parts would cost $25 for an estimated cost of $68 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
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by December 2, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, EC225LP, SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a collective pitch handle installed on a pilot or co-pilot collective stick having part number (P/N) 704A41-1100-42, 704A41-1100-50, 704A41-1100-56, 704A41-1100-57, 704A41-1100-60, 704A41-1100-67, 704A41-1100-68, 704A41-1100-97, 704A41-1100-98, 704A41-1100-99, 704A41-1101-14, 704A41-1101-30, or 704A41-1101-32, as applicable to your model helicopter.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 2510, Flight compartment equipment.
This AD was prompted by a report of an unintentional activation of the hoist shear-button on the collective pitch handle during a night flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address fatigue of the spring in the hoist shear-button safety-cap on the left and right collective pitch handles. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an unintended shearing of the hoist cable and subsequent injury to the hoisted person.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For helicopters identified in paragraph (c) of this AD that have a hoist installed, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months TIS, check the operation of the hoist shear-button safety-cap on each applicable collective pitch handle by accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, as applicable. The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the checks required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD and must enter compliance with these paragraphs into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(i) Place your thumb under the safety-cap and lift the safety-cap to a less-than halfway position. Remove your thumb and verify that the safety-cap goes to the fully open position or that the safety-cap returns to the fully closed position. Repeat these actions no less than two more times. If the safety-cap stays in the less-than halfway position, or the safety-cap does not fully close or fully open during any instance of the actions required by this paragraph, before further flight, a person authorized under 14 CFR 43.3 must accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(ii) Place your thumb under the safety-cap and lift the safety-cap to a halfway position. Remove your thumb and verify that the safety-cap goes to the fully open position or that the safety-cap returns to the fully closed position. Repeat these actions no less than two more times. If the safety-cap stays in the halfway position, or the safety-cap does not fully close or fully open during any instance of the actions required by this paragraph, before further flight, a person authorized under 14 CFR 43.3 must accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(iii) Place your thumb under the safety-cap and lift the safety-cap to a more-than halfway position. Remove your thumb and verify the safety-cap goes to the fully open position or that the safety-cap returns to the fully closed position. Repeat these actions no less than two more times. If the safety-cap stays in the more-than halfway position, or the safety-cap does not fully close or fully open during any instance of the actions required by this paragraph, before further flight, a person authorized under 14 CFR 43.3 must accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(2) If the safety-cap stays in the less-than halfway, halfway, or more-than halfway position, or the safety-cap does not fully close or fully open during any of instance of the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, before further flight, remove the spring from service and replace it with an airworthy spring.
(3) As an alternative to replacing the spring as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
(i) Before further flight, fabricate a placard with a font size greater than or equal to 4 mm (.157 in), stating the following: “NIGHT HOIST OPERATIONS PROHIBITED”. The placard must have a red background with white font color or a white background with red font color. The placard must not be erasable and must be attached to the instrument panel, visible to the pilot and co-pilot.
(ii) Within 150 hours TIS after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD, remove the spring of the safety-cap from service and replace it with an airworthy spring, and remove the placard from service.
(4) For helicopters identified in paragraph (c) of this AD that do not have a hoist installed, before installation of a hoist's removable parts on the helicopter, accomplish the check and as applicable, corrective action, required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any helicopter a collective pitch handle having a P/N identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, or any pilot or co-pilot collective stick with a collective pitch handle having a P/N identified in paragraph (c) of
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (404) 474-5548; email:
None.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes 2025 specifications for the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish fisheries. The implementing regulations for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan and the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan require us to publish specifications for the upcoming fishing year for each of these species and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The proposed specifications establish allowable harvest levels for these species that will prevent overfishing, consistent with the most recent scientific information.
Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2024.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
A Supplemental Information Report (SIR) was prepared for the 2025 black sea bass specifications. Environmental Assessments (EA) were prepared for the 2024 and projected 2025 summer flounder and scup specifications and 2024 and projected 2025 bluefish specifications. Copies of the EAs are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EAs are also accessible via the internet at
Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9116, or
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively develop management measures for the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish fisheries. The Council, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) develops recommendations regarding fisheries in Federal waters seaward of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The Commission, pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, addresses fisheries in state waters from Florida to Maine. These bodies work together in the development of complementary fishery management plans (FMP) for species like summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish that are harvested in both Federal and state waters, and each year these bodies work together to develop specifications for these fisheries. The Council provides its recommendations to NMFS, and NMFS engages in a Federal rulemaking process by which the agency adopts specifications that become binding on the Federal fisheries. Specifications in these fisheries include various catch and landing subdivisions, such as the commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACL), annual catch targets (ACT), and sector-specific landing limits (
The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and the Bluefish FMP and their implementing regulations establish the process for establishing specifications for each of those four species. All requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the 10 national standards, also apply to specifications. The FMPs also contain formulas to divide the catch limits into commercial and recreational fishery allocations, state-by-state quotas, and quota periods, depending on the species in question. This proposed rule outlines the application of the existing allocation provisions for each species and provides
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on July 23-25, 2024, to recommend acceptable biological catches (ABC) for the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish fisheries. The FMPs' implementing regulations require the involvement of a monitoring committee in the specification process for each species. The Monitoring Committees recommend any reduction in catch limits from the SSC-recommended ABCs to offset management uncertainty and other commercial management measures (
Following the SSC and Monitoring Committee meetings, the Council and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass, and Bluefish Management Boards considered the recommendations of the SSC, the Monitoring Committees, and public comments and made their specification recommendations at a meeting held on August 12-15, 2024. While the Boards' actions were finalized at the August meeting, the Council's recommendations must be reviewed by NMFS to ensure that they comply with the FMPs, implementing regulations, and applicable law. NMFS also must conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to propose and implement the final specifications.
Consistent with the statutory scheme described above, NMFS is proposing the Council and Board-recommended 2025 summer flounder catch and landings limits shown in table 1.
The proposed initial 2025 state-by-state summer flounder quotas are provided in table 2. As required in Amendment 21 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP (85 FR 80661), if the commercial quota in any year is higher than 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt), the first 9.55 million lb (4,322 mt) is distributed according to the baseline formula, and any additional quota beyond this threshold will be distributed in equal shares to all states except Maine, Delaware, and New Hampshire, which would split 1 percent of the additional quota. Because this year's quota is below the threshold, the state-by-state allocations below are based on the baseline allocations that were established through Amendment 2 (57 FR 57358) and modified by Amendment 4 (58 FR 49937) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. Any long-standing overages or potential 2024 overages may result in adjustments to these proposed quotas in the final rule.
This action makes no changes to the current commercial management measures, including the minimum fish size (14-inch (36-centimeters (cm)) total length), gear requirements, and possession limits. This action also proposes no changes to the recreational management measures. Any such changes would take place through a separate action.
At the August 2024, meeting, the Council and the Commission's Black Sea Bass Board were unable to agree on the 2025 black sea bass specifications. The Black Sea Bass Board adopted a coastwide quota for black sea bass that is the same as the 2024 quota, while the Council adopted a quota that represents a 20-percent reduction from 2024. If implemented, the differing quotas
The proposed 2025 black sea bass catch and landings limits are shown in table 3.
This action proposes no changes to the other commercial management measures for black sea bass, including the commercial minimum fish size (11-inch (27.94-cm) total length) and gear requirements. This action also proposes no changes to the recreational management measures. Any such changes to recreational management measures for black sea bass would occur through a separate action.
On October 1, 2024 (89 FR 79778), we implemented Amendment 23 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, which changes the Federal coastwide commercial in-season accountability measure such that the black sea bass commercial fishery will now close when the quota plus an additional buffer of up to 5 percent is projected to be landed. The intent of this buffer is to minimize negative economic impacts when the coastwide quota is reached before all states have fully harvested their allocations due to overages in individual states.
Pursuant to Amendment 23, each year, through the specification process, the Council and Board will recommend and NMFS will establish a buffer from 0 to 5 percent. For 2025, the Council and Board have recommended a 5-percent commercial in-season closure buffer, and this action proposes this buffer. Given recent patterns in the fishery, an in-season closure is not expected for 2025; however, in the unlikely event it is needed, a 5-percent buffer could have socioeconomic benefits with little risk to stock status.
The Council and Board-recommended 2025 scup catch and landings limits are shown in table 4.
The Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP established three commercial fishery quota periods with corresponding percentages of the total quota for each period. Applying those percentages, which NMFS does not propose to change via this action, to the quota provided in Table 4 results in the allocations to quota periods outlined in table 5.
The current quota period possession limits are not changed by this action and are outlined in table 6.
The Winter I scup commercial possession limit is proposed to drop to 1,000 lb (454 kg) when 80 percent of that period's allocation is landed. If the Winter I quota is not fully harvested, the remaining quota would be transferred to Winter II. The Winter II possession limit may be adjusted (in association with a transfer of unused Winter I quota to the Winter II period) via announcement in the
This action proposes no changes to the 2025 commercial management measures for scup, including the minimum fish size (9-inch (22.9-cm) total length), gear requirements, and quota period possession limits. This action also proposes no changes to the 2025 recreational management measures. Any such changes would take place through a separate action.
The Council and Board-recommended 2025 bluefish catch and landings limits are shown in table 8.
The coastwide commercial quota is allocated to coastal states from Maine to Florida based on percent shares specified in the Bluefish FMP. Table 9 provides the proposed commercial state allocations based on the Council-recommended coastwide commercial quota for 2025 and the phased-in changes to the percent share allocations to the states specified in Amendment 7. No states exceeded their allocated quota in 2023, or are projected to do so in 2024; therefore, no accountability measures for the commercial fishery are required for the 2025 fishing year based on the data available at this time.
This action proposes no changes to the 2025 commercial or recreational management measures for bluefish.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, the Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for the certification follows.
We conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with the EAs and a SIR. The proposed action would set the 2025 catch and landings limits for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish.
Vessel ownership data were used to identify all individuals who own fishing vessels. Vessels were then grouped according to common owners. The resulting groupings were then treated as entities, or affiliates for purposes of identifying small and large businesses that may be affected by this action.
Affiliates were identified as primarily commercial fishing affiliates if the majority of their revenues in 2023 came from commercial fishing. Some of these affiliates may have also held party/charter permits. Affiliates were identified as primarily for-hire fishing affiliates if the majority of their revenues in 2023 came from for-hire fishing. Some of these affiliates may have also held commercial permits. Affiliates were identified as small or large businesses based on their average revenues during 2019-2023.
A total of 915 affiliates derive the majority of their revenue from commercial fishing operations. Of these affiliates, 905 are classified as small businesses, and 10 are classified as large businesses. A total of 362 primarily for-hire affiliates were identified as potentially impacted by this action. All 362 of these for-hire affiliates were categorized as small businesses.
The 10 potentially impacted primarily commercial large business affiliates had average total annual revenues of $19.1 million and $303,600 on average in annual revenues from summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and/or bluefish during 2019-2023. On average, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and/or bluefish accounted for about 2 percent of total annual revenues for these ten large businesses.
The 905 potentially impacted primarily commercial small business affiliates had average total annual revenues of $719,300 and $37,500 on average in annual revenues from commercial landings of summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and/or bluefish during 2019-2023. Summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass accounted for an average of 5 percent of the total revenues for these 905 small businesses.
The proposed 2025 quotas for black sea bass and summer flounder are constant compared to 2024. The proposed 2025 bluefish quota is approximately 25 percent higher than the 2024 quota. The proposed 2025 quota for scup would decrease by approximately 7 percent compared to 2024. This decrease in the scup quota is the only plausible pathway for the proposed rule to have an adverse impact on small entities. However, the proposed 2025 scup commercial quotas are expected to result in similar levels of commercial scup landings and revenues as the past several years. Commercial scup landings appear to be influenced more by market factors than the annual commercial quota. The proposed 2025 scup quota is higher than recent commercial landings which have ranged between 12 and 13 million lb since 2018. It is unlikely that commercial effort or landings would change given recent trends.
As previously stated, 362 for-hire fishing affiliates were identified as potentially impacted by this action based on the definition above. All these affiliates were categorized as small businesses based on their average 2019-2023 revenues. These 362 small businesses had average total annual revenues of $133,500 during 2019-2023. Their average revenues from recreational for hire fishing (for a variety of species) was $132,500. On average, recreational fishing accounted for 99 percent of the total revenues for these 362 small businesses.
It is not possible to derive what proportion of the for-hire revenues came from fishing activities for an individual species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish as recreational species, revenues generated from these species are likely important
For-hire revenues are impacted by a variety of factors, including demand for for-hire trips for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, and other potential target species, as well as weather, the economy, and other factors. Recreational measures (possession, season and size limits) for 2025 will remain the same as measures implemented in 2024 for summer flounder, scup, and bluefish. Potential changes for black sea bass recreational measures will be considered in a separate action, but with an unchanged recreational quota it is unlikely that any changes would significantly affect revenues. In any event, any changes to the black sea bass recreational measures will be evaluated when they are developed.
This action is not expected to adversely impact revenues for commercial and recreational vessels that fish for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish. Because this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 15, 2024 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
FPAC will use the Federal Award Performance Monitoring and Reporting Form to support the implementation of section 301 of 2 CFR part 200, Performance Measurement.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 15, 2024 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Additionally, the Secretary is directed by section 2501 of the Act to report certain data to Congress on an annual basis. Part B of this request addresses the creation of a web-based system to collect information from grantees that will partially fulfill this requirement.
Part C of this request addresses the creation of a survey tool that will allow OPPE to engage directly with program participants from grantee programs in order to collect the data needed to respond fully to the Act's requirements for Congressional Reporting.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Davy Crockett-Sam Houston Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Davy Crockett National Forest within Houston and Trinity Counties, and the Sam Houston National Forest within Walker County, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person meeting will be held on October 31, 2024, 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Central Daylight Time.
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person at the Davy Crockett National Forest Ranger Station, located at 18551 State Highway 7 East, Kennard, Texas 75847. RAC information and meeting details can be found at the following website:
Jimmy Tyree, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 936-553-3446 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Welcome and introduce new committee members.
2. Elect a new Committee Chairman.
3. Power Point presentation on history of Davy Crockett-Sam Houston RAC.
4. RAC project proposal presentations/vote.
5. Public comments.
6. Set next meeting date.
7. Adjourn.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 15 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest within Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, and Yakima Counties, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
One in-person and virtual meeting will be held on October 31, 2024, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person and virtually at the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters Office, located at 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington. The public may also join virtually via the links that will be posted to the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest website. RAC information and meeting details can be found at the following website:
Victoria Wilkins Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 509-470-4588 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson;
2. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
3. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 3 days after the meeting dates listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to announce acceptance of grant, guaranteed loan, and combined grant and guaranteed loan applications under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This notice announces the deadlines, dates, and times that applications must be received in order to be considered for REAP funds. The NOFO is being issued for Fiscal Years (FY) 2025, 2026, and 2027. The notice will not be applied retroactively to any applications previously filed. Applications received the date following the publication of this notice through September 30, 2027, will be evaluated and scored according to the provisions listed in this notice, unless otherwise amended via a subsequent notice.
As provided for in 7 CFR 4280.122, the Agency, by this notice, is decreasing the number of competitions for Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements (RES/EEI). The application deadline date and time as outlined in 7 CFR 4280.156(a) for Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance (EA and REDA) remains unchanged. RES/EEI and Energy Efficient Equipment and systems (EEE) guaranteed loan applications are completed on an ongoing basis in accordance with 7 CFR 5001.315. See section D.4. of this notice for details on future RES/EEI grant competitions.
You are encouraged to contact your USDA RD State Energy Coordinator well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for State Office Energy Coordinators can be found at
Program guidance and application forms may be obtained at
Jonathan Burns, Programs Management Division, RBCS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 3226, Room 5801-S, Washington, DC 20250-3226, Phone: (774) 678-7238 or Email
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
b.
The Agency may, at its discretion, increase the total level of funding available in this funding round (or in any category in this notice) from any available source provided the awards meet the requirements of the statute which made the funding available to the Agency.
1.
2.
3.
a. Applicants are advised against starting construction prior to the Agency's completion of its environmental review process. Even if construction starts before the environmental review process is completed, the application may ultimately be determined to be ineligible.
b. Only projects that have been determined by the Agency to have technical merit, as determined using the procedures specified in 7 CFR 4280.117, are eligible for program funding.
c. Pursuant to the definition of Renewable Energy System in 7 CFR 4280.103, RES projects that include components and ancillary infrastructure such as flexible fuel pumps or electric vehicle charging stations may not be networked or utilize network management software that allows for payment processing as these systems include a mechanism for dispensing energy at retail.
4.
5.
a.
i. Ineligible project costs are defined at: 7 CFR 4280.115(d) for RES/EEI grant and combined grant and guaranteed loans; 7 CFR 4280.152(c) for EA/REDA grant; and 7 CFR 4280.137 (j)(5) and 5001.122 for RES/EEI/EEE loan guarantees.
ii. Applicants are advised to not incur project costs, prior to Agency acknowledgement of a complete and eligible application. Pursuant to 7 CFR 4280.115(c) and 7 CFR 4280.152(b), any costs incurred prior to your complete application date are considered ineligible project costs. Final Federal grant share amounts are calculated at the time of reimbursement and are based on the documented total eligible project costs. Awardees must provide evidence of costs incurred at the time of reimbursement. Having ineligible project costs could result in receiving a lower Federal grant share amount than originally requested or approved, or a determination that a project is ineligible.
b.
i.
ii.
iii.
A. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115-334, as amended, (the 2018 Farm Bill) requires USDA to promulgate regulations and guidelines to establish and administer a program for the production of hemp in the United States.
B. In determining eligibility for the applicant, project or use of funds, any project applying for funding under the REAP program and proposing to produce, procure, supply or market any component of the hemp plant or hemp related by-products, or provide technical assistance related to such products, must have a valid license from an approved State, Tribal or Federal plan pursuant to section G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, to be in compliance with regulations published by the Agricultural Marketing Service at 7 CFR part 990, and meet any applicable U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration regulatory requirements. Verification of valid hemp licenses will occur prior to award. In addition, all projects proposing to use biomass feedstock from any part of the hemp plant must demonstrate assurance of an adequate supply of the feedstock.
1.
2.
a. Applicants must submit complete applications by the dates identified in section D.4., of this notice, containing all parts necessary for the Agency to determine applicant and project eligibility, to score the application, and to conduct the technical merit evaluation, as applicable, in order to be considered. The Agency encourages the applicant to reach out to their Energy Coordinator to determine application status. The applicant bears all risk should they incur project costs or commence construction activities prior to Agency notification of a complete and eligible application and the completion of an environmental review.
b. Applicants must submit one original, hardcopy or electronic application to the appropriate RD Energy Coordinator for the State where the applicant's proposed project will be located, or for grant applications, submission may be via
3.
a. At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. To register in SAM, entities will be required to obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at
b. Applicants must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
c. Applicants must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
d. Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
e. The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
4.
The Agency encourages applicants to reach out to their Energy Coordinator to determine application status. When an application window closes, the next application window opens on the following day, if applicable. An application received after the window closing date will be considered with other complete applications received in the next application window. If the competition deadline falls on a weekend or a federally observed holiday, the next Federal business day will be considered last day for receipt of a complete application. Applications not funded in a given competition will rollover to the next competition.
Applications will compete based upon on the dollar amount of grant request (set aside or unrestricted), the percent of Federal grant share to total project cost, or if the definition of underutilized technologies, as defined in section A.3. is met.
a.
i.
ii.
iii.
A. The following additional application deadlines are being announced for FY 2025:
(1) December 31, 2024; and
(2) March 31, 2025.
B. The following application deadlines are being announced for FY 2026:
(1) September 30, 2025;
(2) December 31, 2025; and
(3) March 31, 2026.
C. The following application deadlines are being announced for FY 2027:
(1) September 30, 2026;
(2) December 31, 2026; and
(3) March 31, 2027.
iv.
v.
A. State allocated unrestricted funds will be pooled on or about August 1. Pooled unrestricted funds will first be used to fund eligible unselected requests of more than $20,000.
B. Applications may compete in National Office competitions provided it has competed in at least one State competition.
vi.
b.
c.
5.
6.
a.
i.
Entities that share common management or ownership, regardless of percent owned, either directly or indirectly through another entity or person, have an aggregated funding limit of $500,000 in EEI awards and $1 million in RES awards per Federal Fiscal Year.
ii.
A. Pursuant to section 22002 of the IRA, the Federal grant portion of a project utilizing IRA funds cannot exceed 50 percent of total eligible project costs. Applications submitted on or after the next business day following the publication of the notice are subject to the requirements of this notice, unless otherwise specified in a subsequent
(1) Is a renewable energy system or retrofit of a renewable energy system that produces zero greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide (CO
(2) Is located in an Energy Community as defined in 26 U.S.C. 45(b)(11)(B), and as determined by the Department of Energy;
(3) Is an energy efficiency improvement project; or
(4) Is a project proposed from an eligible Tribal corporation or other Tribal Business entities (including Tribal agriculture operations) as described in 7 CFR part 4280.
All other applications, such as biomass and biogas projects, are eligible for up to 25 percent Federal grant share from IRA funds. The Federal grant portion of a project utilizing appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, or supplemental appropriations bills, cannot exceed 25 percent of total eligible project costs. Sources of REAP grant funds cannot be combined to fund a project. Loan and grant combination applications may use IRA grant funds and mandatory Farm Bill loan funds to fund a project.
B. For RES grants, the minimum request is a total project cost threshold of $10,000; therefore, at 25 percent funding the minimum grant request is $2,500, and at 50 percent funding the minimum grant request is $5,000. The maximum grant request is $1,000,000. For EEI grants, the minimum request is a total project cost threshold of $6,000, therefore at 25 percent funding the minimum grant request is $1,500 and at 50 percent funding the minimum grant request is $3,000. The maximum grant request is $500,000. These minimum and maximum limits also apply to the grant portion of a combined funding request.
C. For RES/EEI/EEE loan guarantees or the loan guaranteed portion of a combined funding request, the minimum REAP guaranteed loan amount is $5,000, and the maximum
iii.
b.
i. Applicants may submit only one EA grant application and one REDA grant application in a FY. Separate applications must be submitted for EA funding and REDA funding. If an application is submitted for both EA and REDA funding or if an application's scope of work includes both EA and REDA activities, it will be determined ineligible for competition. The maximum aggregate amount of EA and REDA grant awards to any one recipient cannot exceed $100,000 in a FY.
ii. Applicants that have received one or more grants under this program must have made satisfactory progress per 7 CFR 4280.110(a) before being considered for funding.
iii. The 2018 Farm Bill mandates that the recipient of an EA grant must require the agricultural producer or rural small business receiving the energy audit to pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the energy audit, which shall be retained by the grantee for the cost of the audit.
1.
a. RES/EEI grant applications and RES/EEI combined grant and loan guarantee requests received between March 31, 2023, and September 30, 2024, or the business day before publication of this notice whichever happens last will be scored according to the notice published in the
b. As provided for in 7 CFR 4280.121, the Agency, by this notice, is updating RES/EEI grants and RES/EEI combined grant and loan guarantee scoring criteria. Applications submitted on or after the next business day following the publication of the notice will be scored based on the criteria identified below.
i. Existing business and size of request, 7 CFR 4280.121(e) and (g) will be removed from the scoring criteria.
ii. Project is located in a Disadvantaged Community or a Distressed Community (15 points will be added). A Disadvantaged Community will be determined by the Agency by using the Council on Environmental Quality's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (which is incorporated into the USDA look-up map) which identifies communities burdened by climate change and environmental injustice. Additionally, all communities within the boundaries of federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Villages will also be determined to be Disadvantaged Communities by the Agency. Distressed Community will be determined by the Agency by using the Economic Innovation Group's Distressed Communities Index (which is incorporated into the USDA look-up map), which uses several socio-economic measures to identify communities with low economic wellbeing. To determine if your project is located in a Disadvantaged Community or a Distressed Community, please use the following USDA look-up map:
iii. Environmental benefits, 7 CFR 4280.121(a) is being increased to a maximum of 10 points, and points will be awarded as follows: All projects which do not produce greenhouse gases at the project level will be awarded five (5) points and may be considered for up to a maximum of 10 points. Applicants must provide a detailed narrative or analysis to support additional environmental benefits. One point will be awarded for each of the five sub-criteria for documented environmental benefit supported by the project. Each additional benefit must be directly attributable to the RES/EEI project and assessed at the project level; (1) does not convert farmland; (2) does not contribute to deforestation or addresses fire hazards on forest lands; (3) documented water conservation; (4) complies with EPA's renewable fuel standards; and (5) at least 25 percent of project components are biobased.
iv. Commitment of funds, 7 CFR 4280.121(c) is being decreased to a maximum of 10 points.
v. State Director and Administrator priority points, 7 CFR 4280.121(h) have been modified as shown in item F.1.e. below.
vi. The remaining scoring criteria, energy generated, replaced or saved; previous grantees and borrowers; and simple payback, 7 CFR 4280.121 (b), (d), and (f), respectively, remain as stated in the regulation.
c. EA/REDA grants will be scored based on 7 CFR 4280.155.
d. RES/EEI/EEE guaranteed loans will be scored based on 7 CFR 5001.319 and item F.1.e. below.
e. State Director or Administrator priority points are found in 7 CFR 4280.121(h), 4280.137(h), and 5001.319(g). For the purposes of this notice, the State Director or Administrator at their discretion may award up to 10 priority points maximum. The maximum of 5 points will be awarded for projects which meets the following criterion:
Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects. Using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) Look-Up Map (available at
• The project is located in or serving a community with score 0.75 or above on the SVI;
• The applicant is a federally recognized Tribe, including Tribal instrumentalities and entities that are wholly owned by Tribes; or
• Is a project where at least 50 percent of the project beneficiaries are members of federally recognized Tribes and non-Tribal applicants include a Tribal Resolution of Consent from the Tribe or Tribes that the applicant is proposing to serve.
• The application is from or benefiting a Rural Partner's Network's (RPN) community network. Currently RPN Networks exist in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Use the Community Look-Up map (available at
Up to an additional 5 points may be awarded based on the following criteria:
i. Selecting the application helps achieve geographic diversity, which may include points based upon the size of the funding request;
ii. The applicant is a member of an unserved or underserved population.
A. Owned by a veteran, including but not limited to individuals as sole
B. Owned by a member of a socially disadvantaged group, which are groups whose members have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. To receive points, the application must include a statement in their application to indicate that the owners of the project are members of a socially disadvantaged group;
iii. The proposed project is in a federally declared major disaster area. Declarations must be within the last 2 calendar years; or
iv. The proposed project is located in
A. An area where 20 percent or more of its population is living in poverty over the last 30 years, as defined by the United States Census Bureau, or
B. An area that has experienced long-term population decline, or loss of employment.
Except for veteran and socially disadvantaged group status, all other priority points are based upon project location specific criteria which will be documented automatically by the Agency. State Director or Administrator priority points for a REAP application cannot exceed 10 points total.
2.
The Agency will give 15 business days for applicants to provide the missing documentation. The application will be withdrawn, and the applicant notified if the required documentation is not received within the 15 business days or if the information submitted by the deadline is insufficient.
Application processing will continue if all documentation is received timely and is sufficient to meet the definition of a complete application.
Once an application is deemed complete, the Agency will review for applicant and project eligibility as well as for financial and technical feasibility. If the Agency requires additional clarification or documentation, the Agency will send a notification and give a second 15 business day window for the applicant to provide the information needed for applicant and project eligibility and financial and technical feasibility.
The application will be withdrawn, and the applicant notified if the required information is not received within the 15 business days or if the information submitted by the deadline is insufficient.
Application processing will continue if all information is received timely and is sufficient for determining applicant and project eligibility as well as for financial and technical feasibility. The applicant will then receive a notification of the eligibility review outcome.
a. Each applicant and/or lender, as applicable, will be notified of the Agency's decision on their application.
b. If selected for funding, applicants will receive a notification from the Agency via postal service or email. Selection notification does not ensure grant approval. If selected, a Letter of Conditions will be prepared establishing conditions that must be agreed to by the applicant before any obligation of funds can occur. Letters of Condition will be sent with Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions”, and Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.” Applicants must complete, sign, and return Form RD 1942-46 and RD 1940-1 if they accept the conditions of the grant.
c. If not selected for funding, a notification will be provided via postal service or email and will include any review and or appeal rights.
a.
i. Additional requirements that apply to applicants selected for a program award can be found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart B, or 7 CFR part 5001; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 200, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR part 25, and successor regulations to these parts. The following additional completed documents are required for Applicants selected for a program award:
A. RD 4280-2, “Financial Assistance Agreement.”
B. Form RD-400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
C. Form RD-400-1 “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”
D. SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3.
a. An SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period) between grant approval and completion (
b. Form RD 4280-3D, `Annual Outcome Project Performance Certification' as outlined in 7 CFR 4280.124(i)(3), must be provided by grantee once the project has been constructed.
c. A final project and financial status report must be provided within 120 days after the expiration or termination of the grant as outlined in 7 CFR 4280.124(i)(2)(ii).
For general questions about this announcement, please contact Jonathan Burns at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a. Faith-based organizations may apply for this award on the same basis as any other organization, as set forth at, and subject to the protections and requirements of, this part and any applicable constitutional and statutory requirements, including 42 U.S.C. 2000bb
b. A faith-based organization that participates in this program will retain its independence from the Government and may continue to carry out its mission consistent with religious freedom and conscience protections in Federal law. Religious accommodations may also be sought under many of these religious freedom and conscience protection laws.
c. A faith-based organization may not use direct Federal financial assistance from USDA to support or engage in any explicitly religious activities except when consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and any other applicable requirements. An organization receiving Federal financial assistance also may not, in providing services funded by USDA, or in their outreach activities related to such services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice.
6.
7.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
On July 12, 2024, the Department of Commerce received clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to conduct the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Census Household Panel topical operations (OMB No. 0607-1025, Exp. 6/30/26). The Census Household Panel is designed to ensure availability of frequent data collection for nationwide estimates on a variety of topics for a variety of subgroups of the population.
The Topical 13 (November) will include experiments on using auxiliary data, “don't know” responses, and dependent data. For the December topical questionnaire (Topical 14) we will collect data using Household Pulse Survey content. For both months, we will conduct a digital incentives test. The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
Panelists and households selected for the Panel were recruited from the Census Bureau's gold standard Master Address File. This ensures the Panel is rooted in this rigorously developed and maintained frame and available for linkage to administrative records securely maintained and curated by the Census Bureau. Invitations to complete the monthly surveys will be sent via email and SMS messages. Questionnaires will be mainly internet self-response. The Panel will maintain representativeness by allowing respondents who do not use the internet to respond via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). All panelists will receive an incentive for each complete questionnaire. Periodic replenishment samples will maintain representativeness and panelists will be replaced after a period of three years.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
On June 12, 2024, The Piedmont Triad Partnership, grantee of FTZ 230, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Patheon Softgels, within Subzone 230C, in High Point, North Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Request for comments.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is requesting public comments on the effectiveness of its licensing procedures as defined in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for the export and reexport of agricultural commodities to Cuba. BIS will include a description of any comments it receives in its biennial report to Congress, as required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, as amended (TSRA).
Comments must be received by November 15, 2024.
Comments on this notice may be submitted by either of the following methods:
•
•
Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or
Jerry Huang, Office of Nonproliferation and Foreign Policy Controls, Telephone: (202) 482-4252. Additional information on BIS procedures and previous biennial reports under TSRA is available at
Pursuant to section 906(a) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (22 U.S.C. 7205(a)), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) authorizes exports and reexports of agricultural commodities, as defined in part 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774), to Cuba. Requirements and procedures associated with such authorization are set forth in § 740.18 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.18). These are the only licensing procedures in the EAR currently in effect pursuant to the requirements of section 906(a) of TSRA.
Under the provisions of section 906(c) of TSRA (22 U.S.C. 7205(c)), BIS must submit a biennial report to Congress on the operation of the licensing system implemented pursuant to section 906(a) for the preceding two-year period. This report must include the number and types of licenses applied for, the number and types of licenses approved, the average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval, the extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented, and a description of comments received from interested parties during a 30-day public comment period regarding the effectiveness of the licensing procedures. Consistent with TSRA's requirements, BIS is currently preparing a biennial report on the operation of the licensing system for the two-year period from October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2024.
By this notice, BIS requests public comments on the effectiveness of the licensing procedures for the export and reexport of agricultural commodities to Cuba set forth under § 740.18 of the EAR. Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received by the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in developing the report to Congress.
All comments will be publicly available. Any information that the commenter does not wish to be made available to the public should not be submitted to BIS.
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on October 30 and 31, 2024, 9:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). This meeting will be hybrid. The Committee advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and other Federal officials and agencies with respect to actions designed to carry out the policy set forth in section 1752(1)(A) of the Export Control Reform Act. The purpose of the meeting is to have Committee members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
1. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014).
9. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014). The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action were it to be disclosed prematurely. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for members of the public to attend the open session in person. Reservations are not accepted.
To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that members of the public forward their materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email. Material submitted by the public will be made public and therefore should not contain confidential information. Meeting materials from the public session will be accessible via the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) site at
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, performing the non-
Meeting cancellation: If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at
For more information, contact Ms. Springer.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers/exporters of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (ribbons) from the People's Republic of China (China) received countervailable subsidies during the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Applicable October 16, 2024.
Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3642.
On June 10, 2024, Commerce published the
On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.
The products covered by the order are ribbons from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
We received no comments from interested parties on the
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results of review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies listed above for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS received a request from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for the renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with a sediment remediation project in San Francisco Bay, CA. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 31, 2024.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and should be submitted via email to
Electronic copies of the original application, renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
Kristy Jacobus, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal of an IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
On January 30, 2024, NMFS issued an IHA to PG&E to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with sediment remediation in San Francisco Bay, CA (89 FR 5865), effective from May 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025. On September 26, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are nearly identical to those covered in the initial IHA. Although PG&E anticipates that construction will begin during the timeframe of the initial IHA, no work has yet commenced and therefore no preliminary monitoring data are available.
The planned activities are nearly identical to those analyzed in the initial IHA. As the first phase of a 5- to 7-year project to remediate sediments impacted with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in San Francisco Bay, PG&E is planning to install hydroacoustic data collection piles, piles to attach a turbidity curtain, sediment pins to promote slope stability, and install and remove piles to relocate the Red and White Fleet (RWF). A detailed description of these activities can be found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023). Under the initial IHA, eight 24-inch steel shell piles and eight 36-inch steel shell piles were to be installed and removed for the RWF Relocation. Under the renewal IHA, PG&E proposes to install and remove 10 24-inch piles and 10 36-inch steel shell piles for the RWF Relocation. No more than four of each of these piles would be installed or removed per day. As analyzed in the initial IHA, installation of these piles would be done through primarily vibratory pile driving with impact pile driving only as needed to seat the piles. Removal would be through vibratory methods. The remainder of the work would be identical to that of the initial IHA, and the total proposed number of days of in-water work would be the same.
Under the initial IHA, take by Level B harassment from pile driving was authorized for harbor seal (
Documents related to the initial IHA including the
A detailed description of the pile driving activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023; 89 FR 5865, January 30, 2024) for the initial authorization. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices.
The only minor change that PG&E proposes for this renewal IHA is the addition of two 24-inch and two 36-inch steel shell piles in the RWF relocation, which would be installed with vibratory pile driving and impact pile driving only as needed to seat the piles. The piles would be removed with vibratory methods. The addition of these piles would not change the proposed number of in-water work days (50 days; see table 1). The proposed renewal would be effective for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of expiration of the initial IHA. The effective dates would be from May 1, 2025, to April 30, 2026.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023) for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed the 2023 draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined there is no new information that affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA. The abundance estimate for the Eastern stock of the Steller sea lion has decreased from 43,201 to 36,308 according to the 2023 draft SAR (Young
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which an authorization of incidental take is proposed here may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023) for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed recent draft SARs, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity is found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023; 89 FR 5865, January 30, 2024) for the initial authorization. The only changes PG&E proposes to make for the renewal IHA is to add 2 24-inch steel shell piles and 2 36-inch steel shell piles, resulting in a total of 10 of each piles, for installation and removal in the RWF Relocation portion of the project. The source levels, days of operation, and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA, as do the number of takes, which are indicated below in table 2.
On May 3, 2024, NMFS published (89 FR 36762) and solicited public comment on its draft Updated Technical Guidance (
NMFS has also considered whether modifications to mitigation requirements,
Although some estimated Level A harassment zones have increased using the 2024 guidance, consistent with the initial IHA no Level A harassment takes are anticipated, because PG&E proposes to change the shutdown zones accordingly and consistent with the intent of the measures prescribed through the initial IHA, as discussed in
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are nearly identical to those included in the
• PG&E must shut down construction operations if a marine mammal comes within 10 m of construction activity to avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals;
• PG&E must establish shutdown zones for all pile driving activities. Shutdown zones are based on the largest Level A harassment zone for each pile size/type and driving method;
• PG&E must shut down during active pile driving if marine mammals approach shutdown zones (see table 6);
• NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) must be used to monitor the full shutdown zones and as much of the Level B harassment zone as possible;
• PSOs must monitor the shutdown zones for at least 30 minutes prior to pile driving, throughout pile driving, and 30 minutes after;
• If marine mammals are found within the shutdown zone, pile driving must be delayed until the animal has moved out of the shutdown zone;
• PG&E must shut down if any species for which take has not been authorized, or a species for which take has been authorized but the authorized take numbers have been met, approaches or enters the Level B harassment zones;
• Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (
• PG&E must implement impact pile driving soft starts whereby hammer energy is gradually ramped up;
• A bubble curtain must be used during impact pile driving of steel piles;
• PG&E must submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHA for construction activity at the same location, whichever comes first. A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report; and
• All injured or dead marine mammals must be reported to the Office of Protected Resources and to the West Coast regional stranding network.
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for PG&E's sediment remediation project and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met.
All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (89 FR 5865, January 30, 2024) and none of the comments specifically pertained to the renewal IHA.
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundance of the Eastern stock of the Steller sea lion decreasing, updated analysis reflecting the 2024 Technical Guidance, and corresponding updates to required shutdown zones. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) PG&E's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to PG&E for conducting pile driving activities associated with the Sediment Remediation Project in San Francisco Bay, California from May 1, 2025, to April 30, 2026, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of modification to expiration date of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), notification is hereby given that NMFS has modified the expiration date of a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued to Murphy Exploration and Production Company (Murphy) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOM.
This LOA is effective through January 31, 2025.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOM over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” (LPAI) standard of the MMPA.
NMFS issued a LOA to Murphy on March 20, 2024, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node survey in the Green Canyon protraction areas, including approximately 44 lease blocks, effective April 1, 2024, through October 31, 2024. Please see the
Murphy has requested that the October 31, 2024, expiration date be extended to January 31, 2025, due to survey delays (the survey has not begun). Since we issued the LOA to Murphy, we have updated the final rule to include corrected take estimates and new information as discussed above; therefore, we have updated the authorized take numbers accordingly based on this new information. There are no changes to the planned survey, as described in the previous notice of issuance (89 FR 20946, March 26, 2024), including the planned location and duration of the survey.
As discussed in the previous notice of issuance (89 FR 20946, March 26, 2024), no 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, thus the coil proxy was selected. Murphy plans to cover approximately 25.6 square kilometers (km
The survey will take place over approximately 44 days with 40 days of sound source operation, all planned in Zone 5. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 40 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value. There are no other changes to Murphy's planned activity.
For the Rice's whale, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large area of each modeling zone. Thus, although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, the rule acknowledged that other information could be considered (see,
NMFS' 2024 final rule provided detailed discussion regarding Rice's whale habitat (see,
Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the general depth range expected to provide suitable habitat, we expect that any such occurrence would be rare. Murphy's planned activities will occur in water depths of approximately 914 to 3,372 m in the central GOM. Thus, NMFS does not expect there to be the reasonable potential for take of Rice's whale in association with this survey and, accordingly, does not authorize take of Rice's whale through the LOA.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (see 86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
NMFS has changed the expiration date of the LOA from October 30, 2024, to January 31, 2025 and updated authorized take numbers based on the corrected information in the updated rule. There are no other changes to the LOA as described in the March 26, 2024,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) requests the extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an existing information collection titled “Consumer Leasing Act (Regulation M)” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0006.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before November 15, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Anthony May, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, at (202) 435-7278, or email:
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by December 16, 2024.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979.
This notice informs the public that DFC will submit to OMB a request for approval of the following information collection.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Andrew Brake, (202) 453-6136.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Program provides grants to eligible Impact Aid school districts to assist in addressing their school facility emergency and modernization needs. The eligible Impact Aid school districts have a limited ability to raise revenues for capital improvements because they have large areas of Federal land within their boundaries. As a result, these districts find it difficult to respond when their school facilities are in need of emergency repairs or modernization.
This is a new information collection requesting approval through the streamlined discretionary grant application package process (1894-0001). This request is not related to rulemaking.
This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of a modified system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-108 and A-130, the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is publishing notice of a modification to an existing Privacy Act system of records. DOE proposes to amend System of Records DOE-2 DOE-Personnel Supervisor Maintained Personnel Records. This System of Records Notice (SORN) is being modified to align with new formatting requirements, published by the OMB, and to ensure appropriate Privacy Act coverage of business processes and Privacy Act information. While there are no substantive changes to the “Categories of Individuals” or “Categories of Records” sections covered by this SORN, substantive changes have been made to the “System Locations,” “Routine Uses,” and “Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards” sections to provide greater transparency. Changes to “Routine Uses” include new provisions related to responding to breaches of information held under a Privacy Act SORN as required by OMB's Memorandum M-17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” (January 3, 2017). Language throughout the SORN has been updated to align with applicable Federal privacy laws, policies, procedures, and best practices.
This modified SORN will become applicable following the end of the public comment period on November 15, 2024 unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 and to Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm. 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585, by facsimile at (202) 586-8151, or by email at
Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm. 8H-
On January 9, 2009, DOE published a Compilation of its Privacy Act systems of records, which included System of Records DOE-2 DOE-Personnel Supervisor Maintained Personnel Records. For clarity, this notice proposes to change the name of the SORN to Supervisor-Maintained Personnel Records. It removes System Locations where DOE-2 is no longer applicable. These locations are as follows: Alaska Power Administration and Southeastern Power Administration. Moreover, the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Nevada Site Office and Naval Reactors Field Offices in Pittsburgh and Schenectady have been removed. Addresses for the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) sites in Pittsburgh, Morgantown, and Albany have been updated. Addresses for NETL's site in Oklahoma has been removed as it no longer requires coverage. The Office of River Protection/Richland Operations Office, Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center, and Southwestern Power Administration addresses have been updated. In the “Routine Uses” section, this modified notice deletes a previous routine use concerning efforts responding to a suspected or confirmed loss of confidentiality of information as it appears in DOE's compilation of its Privacy Act systems of records (January 9, 2009) and replaces it with one to assist DOE with responding to a suspected or confirmed breach of its records of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), modeled with language from OMB's Memorandum M-17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” (January 3, 2017). Further, this notice adds one new routine use to ensure that DOE may assist another agency or entity in responding to the other agency's or entity's confirmed or suspected breach of PII, as appropriate, as aligned with OMB's Memorandum M-17-12. Several categories have been added to the “Categories of Records in the System.” These include work email address, place of birth, employment/HR information (GS grade and step, tenure, performance ratings, performance history, and employee number); telework agreements, military orders, work schedule agreements, records pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests, sick-leave related medical documentation, and individual development plans. An administrative change required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 extends the length of time a requestor is permitted to file an appeal under the Privacy Act from 30 to 90 days. Both the “System Locations” and “Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards” sections have been modified to reflect the Department's usage of cloud-based services for records storage. Language throughout the SORN has been updated to align with applicable Federal privacy laws, policies, procedures, and best practices.
DOE-2 Supervisor-Maintained Personnel Records.
Unclassified.
Systems leveraging this SORN may exist in multiple locations. All systems storing records in a cloud-based server are required to use government-approved cloud services and follow National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) security and privacy standards for access and data retention. Records maintained in a government-approved cloud server are accessed through secure data centers in the continental United States.
U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
U.S. Department of Energy, John A. Gordon Albuquerque Complex, 24600 20th Street SE, Albuquerque, NM 87116.
U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Chicago Office, Consolidated Service Center, 9800 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Consolidated Service Center, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831.
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415.
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (Pittsburgh), 626 Cochran Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236.
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (Morgantown), 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505.
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (Albany), 1450 Queen Avenue SW, Albany, OR 97321.
U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center (EMCBC), 550 Main Street, Rm. 7-010, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office, P.O. Box 550, Richland, WA 99352.
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29801.
U.S. Department of Energy, Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Suite 1500, Tulsa, OK 74103.
U.S. Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project Management Office, 900 Commerce Road East, New Orleans, LA 70123.
U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213.
Headquarters and Field Offices: The immediate supervisor of the subject of the record(s).
42 U.S.C. 7101
Records in this system are maintained and used by DOE to maintain a file of personnel information that would allow DOE managers to make informed personnel and management decisions concerning employees.
Current and former DOE employees, including National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) employees, those who have departed within the last year, assigned military or detailee personnel, and applicants for employment.
Name, Social Security number, copies and summaries of employment history; SF-171; job description; education; address; next of kin; home and work telephone numbers; work email address, date of birth; place of birth; employment/HR information (GS grade and step, tenure, performance ratings, performance history and employee number); telework agreements, military orders, work schedule agreements, records pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests, sick-leave related medical documentation, individual development plans; awards and commendations received; participation in professional or community activities; training; earnings and leave data; travel actions; certification or qualification examinations; injury reports; appraisals;
The subject employee, employee's supervisor(s), benefits management information, telework/leave requests, employee performance management information, personnel action documents, payroll documents, and personnel security documents.
1. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, tribal, or local agency to facilitate the requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter. The Department must deem such disclosure to be compatible with the purpose for which the Department collected the information.
2. A record from the system may be disclosed as a routine use to DOE contractors in performance of their contracts, and their officers and employees who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties. Those provided information under this routine use are subject to the same limitations applicable to Department officers and employees under the Privacy Act.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to a member of Congress submitting a request involving a constituent when the constituent has requested assistance from the member concerning the subject matter of the record. The member of Congress must provide a copy of the constituent's signed request for assistance.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOE (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
5. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
Records may be stored as paper records or electronic media.
Records are retrieved by name.
Retention and disposition of these records is in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration-approved records disposition schedule. Records in this system are destroyed once superseded or 1 year after the subject employee has separated or transferred.
Electronic records may be secured and maintained on a cloud-based software server and operating system that resides in Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) hosting environment. Data located in the cloud-based server is firewalled and encrypted at rest and in transit. The security mechanisms for handling data at rest and in transit are in accordance with DOE encryption standards. Records are protected from unauthorized access through the following appropriate safeguards:
•
•
•
The Department follows the procedures outlined in title 10 CFR part 1008.4. Valid identification of the individual making the request is required before information will be processed, given, access granted, or a correction considered, to ensure that information is processed, given, corrected, or records disclosed or corrected only at the request of the proper person.
Any individual may submit a request to the System Manager and request a copy of any records relating to them. In accordance with 10 CFR 1008.11, any individual may appeal the denial of a request made by him or her for information about or for access to or correction or amendment of records. An appeal shall be filed within 90 calendar days after receipt of the denial. When an appeal is filed by mail, the postmark is conclusive as to timeliness. The appeal shall be in writing and must be signed by the individual. The words “PRIVACY ACT APPEAL” should appear in capital letters on the envelope and the letter. Appeals of denials relating to records maintained in government-wide system of records reported by Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall be filed, as appropriate, with the Assistant Director
In accordance with the DOE regulation implementing the Privacy Act, 10 CFR 1008, a request by an individual to determine if a system of records contains information about themselves should be directed to the U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters, Privacy Act Officer. The request should include the requester's complete name and the time period for which records are sought.
None.
This SORN was last published in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 9, 2024, by Ann Dunkin, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
October 17, 2024, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Open to the public.
Agenda.
—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed online at the Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search using the eLibrary link.
A free webcast of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides technical support for the free webcasts. Please call (202) 502-8680 or email
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission
On February 14, 2023, Idaho Power Company filed an application for a new major license for the 67.5-megawatt American Falls Hydroelectric Project (American Falls Project; FERC No. 2736). The American Falls project is located on the Snake River in Power County, Idaho, near the city of American Falls, about 25 miles southwest of Pocatello. The project is located at the American Falls Dam, owned and operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The project occupies 7.37 acres of United States land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Power County, Idaho.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on February 7, 2024, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice and the water quality certification issued by Idaho DEQ, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On April 22, 2024, the Commission issued a notice indicating that staff intended to prepare a draft and final Environmental Assessment (EA). However, upon further review, staff intends to prepare a single EA on the application to relicense the American Falls Project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing the EA. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Golbahar Mirhosseini at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a virtual meeting of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEE-AC). The NEE-AC was created by Congress to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to activities, functions, and policies of EPA under the National Environmental Education Act (the Act).
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss specific topics of relevance by the council to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental education.
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 24, 2024, from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be virtual. A link for participation will be provided upon request.
Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer,
Members of the public wishing to participate virtually must contact the DFO by October 14, 2024, to receive access to the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make brief oral comments or provide a written statement to the NEE-AC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellation of certain pesticide products in association with fiscal year 2023 maintenance fee invoicing and collection. Table 1 of Unit III lists those products for which registrants have voluntarily requested cancellation pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Table 3 of Unit III lists those products that EPA is cancelling for non-payment of annual maintenance fees, pursuant to FIFRA.
The cancellations are effective October 16, 2024.
Brenda Minnema, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-2840; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for these actions, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0094-0001, is available at
This cancellation order follows a notice that published in the
FIFRA section 4(i)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(i)(1)) requires that all pesticide registrants pay an annual registration maintenance fee, due by January 15 of each year, to keep their registrations in effect. This requirement applies to all registrations granted under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) as well as those granted under FIFRA section 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)) to meet special local needs. Registrations for which the fee is not paid are subject to cancellation by order and without a hearing pursuant to FIFRA section 4(i)(1)(M) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(i)(1)(M)). Accordingly, no comment period was provided for the products listed in Table 3 of Unit III.
Under FIFRA, the EPA Administrator may reduce or waive maintenance fees for minor agricultural use pesticides when it is determined that the fee would be likely to cause significant impact on the availability of the pesticide for the use.
In fiscal year 2023, maintenance fees were collected in two billing cycles. An initial invoicing was sent out on December 1, 2022, reflecting the maintenance fee average annual collection target of $31 million specified under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 (PRIA 4). The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA5), enacted December 29, 2022, raised the average annual collection target to $42 million. A supplemental invoicing to collect towards this increased target was sent out on January 26, 2023. In the invoicing, all holders of FIFRA section 3 registrations and FIFRA section 24(c) registrations were sent links to the lists of their active registrations, along with forms and instructions for responding. Registrants were asked to identify which of their registrations they wished to maintain in effect, and to calculate and remit the maintenance fees due for those registrations by the statutory deadline of January 17, 2023. A notice of intent to cancel was sent in December 2023 to companies who did not respond to EPA's invoices or that responded but did not pay all maintenance fees due for their registrations.
For fiscal year 2023, the Agency has waived the fees for 275 minor agricultural use or public health registrations at the request of the registrants. Maintenance fees have been paid for about 17,965 FIFRA section 3 registrations, or about 97% of the registrations on file in October 2022. Fees have been paid for about 1,810 FIFRA section 24(c) registrations, or about 85% of the total registrations on file in October 2022. Thus, cancellations for non-payment of the maintenance fee affect 131 FIFRA section 3 registrations and 44 FIFRA section 24(c) registrations.
Cancellation of registrations held by companies paying the fee at one of the capped payment amounts (see FIFRA section 4(i)(1)(D)) are considered voluntary cancellations under FIFRA section 6(f) and not cancellations for non-payment under FIFRA section 4(i)(1) because the registrations being cancelled could be maintained without an additional fee payment. These cancellations, discussed in Unit II.A, are subject to a 30-day comment period and are listed in Table 1 below.
The cancellation orders generally permit registrants to continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of the canceled products until 1 year after the date on which the fee was due. Existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users, however, can generally be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted. Existing stocks are defined as those stocks of a registered pesticide product which are currently in the United States, and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation order.
The exceptions to these general rules are cases where more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products have already been imposed, through special reviews or other Agency actions. These general provisions for disposition of stocks should serve in most cases to cushion the impact of these cancellations while the market adjusts.
This notice announces the cancellation of certain specified pesticide product registrations.
Table 1 of this unit lists products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) for which the Agency has received a request for cancellation by the registrants. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number. These registrations are cancelled by this order effective October 16, 2024 following the 30-day comment period ending August 25, 2024.
Table 2 of this unit lists the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This company number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
Table 3 of this unit lists all the FIFRA section 3 and section 24(c) registrations that are canceled for non-payment of the 2023 maintenance fee. These registrations are canceled by this order effective October 16, 2024 and without hearing.
Table 4 of this unit lists the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 3 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This company number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the July 26, 2024,
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Tables 1 and 3 of Unit III. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Tables 1 and 3 of Unit III. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is October 16, 2024. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VII. will be a violation of FIFRA. No distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 3 is permitted, as set forth in Unit VII, and any future distribution or sale of the products identified in Table 3 by registrants identified in Table 4 constitutes a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 4(i)(1)(M) provides that EPA may, by order and without hearing, cancel any registration for which the required annual maintenance fee payment is not received by the statutory deadline. For all products listed in Table 3, maintenance fee payments were due by January 17, 2023, but have not been remitted to the Agency.
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States, and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.
Registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit III may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit III until the date of publication of this
No sale or distribution of products listed in Table 3 shall be permitted. Under EPA's existing stocks policy, if a registrant fails to pay the appropriate maintenance fee and the product subject to that fee is later canceled, the registrant will generally not be allowed to sell or distribute existing stocks of the cancelled product more than 1 year after the date the maintenance fee was due. Here, registrants of products listed in Table 3 were required to submit maintenance fees by January 17, 2023. More than one year has elapsed since that date, so no sale or distribution of existing stocks is being permitted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) plans to authorize a contractor and several subcontractors to access information that will be submitted to the EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) and the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM) that may be claimed as, or may be determined to be, confidential business information (CBI).
Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2024. The contractor's and subcontractors' access to information collected under the CAA, the APPS and the AIM, will begin on October 22, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA HQ-OECA-2024-0420, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Griffith Brown, Air Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (Mail Code 8MSU), Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202; telephone number: (202) 250-8551; email address:
This action is directed to the general public. However, this action may be of particular interest to certain parties, including the following: owners and operators of stationary sources subject to the CAA including, but not limited to, State Implementation Plans (SIPs), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, MACT Rules) under Section 112, permits including New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and Prevention of Accidental Releases under Section 112(r); motor vehicle manufacturers and importers; engine manufacturers and importers; motor vehicle fuel and fuel additive producers and importers; manufacturers, importers, users and distributors of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); manufacturers, importers and distributors of motor vehicle and engine emission control equipment and parts; and any other parties subject to the regulations found in 40 CFR parts 52, 60, 63-80, 82, 84-86, 89-92, 94, 98, 600, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, 1068, and 1090.
This
The EPA has established a public docket for this
All documents in the docket are identified in the docket index available at
Materials listed under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2024-0420 will be available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
The EPA's OECA has responsibility for protecting public health and the environment by enforcing standards for air pollution. In order to implement various CAA, APPS and AIM programs, OECA collects compliance reports and other information from the regulated industry. Occasionally, the information submitted to, or obtained by, the EPA is claimed to be CBI by persons submitting data to the EPA. Information submitted under such a claim is handled in accordance with the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and in accordance with the EPA procedures that are consistent with those regulations. When the EPA has determined that disclosure of information claimed as CBI to EPA contractors or subcontractors is necessary, the corresponding contract must address the appropriate use and handling of the information by the EPA contractor and subcontractors and the EPA contractor and subcontractors must require its personnel who require access to information claimed as CBI to sign written non-disclosure agreements before they are granted access to data.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), the EPA has determined that EPA contractor Eastern Research Group, Incorporated (ERG), 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151, and ERG subcontractors Allen Lyons Consulting LLC; CohnReznick LLP; and James J. Carroll, CPA (collectively referred to as “subcontractors” in this notice) require access to CBI submitted to the EPA under the CAA, APPS, and the AIM for the work they perform under Contract Number 68HERC24D0009. We are providing notice and an opportunity to
Under Contract Number 68HERC24D0009, ERG provides enforcement support for the EPA's regulatory and enforcement activities, including field inspections, investigations, audits, and other CAA regulatory and enforcement support that involve access to information claimed as CBI. ERG also employs subcontractors, who support these activities, under the above-listed contract. ERG and its subcontractors require access to information claimed as CBI to support EPA enforcement activities described above. Access to data, including information claimed as CBI, will commence six days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Parties who wish to obtain further information about this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership (Revision)” (EPA ICR No. 2349.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0702) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed revision of the information collection request, which is currently approved through July 31, 2027. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-QAR-2022-0449, to EPA online using
Annie Kee, Stratospheric Protection Division—Office of Air and Radiation, (3204A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2056; email address:
This is a proposed revision of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2027. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
10:00 a.m. on October 17, 2024.
This Board meeting will be open to public observation only by webcast. Visit
Observers requiring auxiliary aids (
Open to public observation via webcast.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet to consider the following matters:
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. The Board will resolve these matters with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Designated Reserve Ratio for 2025.
Delay of Compliance Date for Subpart A Amendments to FDIC Official Sign and Advertising Rule.
Minutes of a Board of Directors' Meeting Previously Distributed.
Direct requests for further information concerning the meeting to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.
10:00 a.m. on October 17, 2024.
This Board meeting will be open to public observation only by webcast. Visit
Observers requiring auxiliary aids (
Open to public observation via webcast.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet to consider the following matters:
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. The Board will resolve these matters with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Designated Reserve Ratio for 2025.
Delay of Compliance Date for [Certain] [Subpart A] Amendments to FDIC Official Sign and Advertising Rule.
Minutes of a Board of Directors' Meeting Previously Distributed.
Direct requests for further information concerning the meeting to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice is given that an amended complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by TZ SSE Buyer, LLC (the “Complainant”) against Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. (the “Respondent”). Complainant states that the Commission has jurisdiction over the amended complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 through 41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has entered into a service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with the original complainants.
Complainant is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio. Impact Products, LLC and Safety Zone, LLC (the “original complainants”) filed the verified complaint in this proceeding on February 7, 2024, and subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sold the claims asserted in this proceeding to Complainant. The original complainants are shippers as this term is defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23) with offices in Ohio, Tennessee, and Connecticut, among other locations.
Complainant identifies Respondent as a company existing under the laws of Taiwan with a principal place of business in Keelung, Taiwan and as a global ocean carrier who acts in the United States by and through its agent, Yang Ming (America) Corp., a Texas company with an office in Houston, Texas.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainant alleges these violations arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the original parties and their agents and service providers, and from the acts or omissions of the Respondent that led to the assessment of these charges.
An answer to the amended complaint must be filed with the Commission as provided in Chief Administrative Law Judge Erin M. Wirth's October 4, 2024, Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The full text of the amended complaint and this order can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.
1 p.m., Wednesday, October 16, 2024.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or in the Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004.
Closed.
The Commission will conduct a meeting closed to the public to consider a personnel matter. Commissioners will attend the meeting. Staff members who provide technological support may also be present as necessary. This meeting is closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) in order to protect the privacy interests of personnel involved in the action under consideration. The Commission determined that shorter than usual notice for a meeting was required by official agency business.
Sarah Stewart (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than October 31, 2024.
1.
In addition,
2.
In addition,
Finally,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Acquisition Service (Q), General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, GSA is hereby giving notice of an open public meeting of the Federal Secure Cloud Advisory Committee (FSCAC). Information on attending and providing public comment is under the
The open public meeting will be held virtually on Thursday, November 14, 2024, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET). The meeting materials, registration information, and agendas for the meeting will be made available prior to the meeting online at
The meeting will be accessible via webcast. Registration is required for the meeting and will be made available prior to the meeting online at
Michelle White, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), FSCAC, GSA, 703-489-4160,
GSA, in compliance with the FedRAMP Authorization Act of 2022 (the Act), established the FSCAC, a statutory advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of FACA, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001
• To examine the operations of FedRAMP and determine ways that authorization processes can continuously be improved, including the following:
○ Measures to increase agency reuse of FedRAMP authorizations.
○ Proposed actions that can be adopted to reduce the burden, confusion, and cost associated with FedRAMP authorizations for cloud service providers.
○ Measures to increase the number of FedRAMP authorizations for cloud computing products and services offered by small businesses concerns (as defined by section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
○ Proposed actions that can be adopted to reduce the burden and cost of FedRAMP authorizations for agencies.
• Collect information and feedback on agency compliance with, and implementation of, FedRAMP requirements.
• Serve as a forum that facilitates communication and collaboration among the FedRAMP stakeholder community.
The FSCAC will meet no fewer than three (3) times a calendar year. Meetings shall occur as frequently as needed, called, and approved by the DFO.
The November 14, 2024 public meeting will be dedicated to continued deliberations in order to develop an initial draft of recommendations to the GSA Administrator on their initial two (2) priority initiatives of (1) identifying and documenting top challenges and proposing solutions around the barrier to entry for Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) with a focus on small businesses, third party assessment organizations (3PAOs), and small & large agencies, and (2) identifying and documenting ways to expedite the authorization process for Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs), such as exploring agile authorizations and other potential cost reductions, both labor and financial, with a focus on small businesses.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide oral public comments during this meeting, and may also submit public comments in writing prior to this meeting by completing the public comment form on our website,
The virtual meeting is open to the public. The meeting materials, registration information, and agenda will be made available prior to the meeting online at
For information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation for a disability, please email the FSCAC staff at
Members of the public attending will have the opportunity to provide oral public comment during the FSCAC meeting. Written public comments can be submitted at any time by completing the public comment form on our website,
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Comments on this notice must be received by November 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (the Patient Safety Act), signed into law on July 29, 2005, was enacted in response to growing concern about patient safety in the United States and the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System”. The Patient Safety Act signifies the Federal Government's commitment to fostering a culture of patient safety among health care providers; it offers a mechanism for creating an environment in which the causes of risks and hazards to patient safety can be thoroughly and honestly examined and discussed without fear of penalties and liabilities. It provides for the voluntary formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs) that can collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information reported voluntarily by health care providers. By analyzing substantial amounts of patient safety event information across multiple institutions, PSOs are able to identify patterns of failures and propose measures to eliminate or reduce risks and hazards.
In order to implement the Patient Safety Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule (Patient Safety Rule, 42 CFR part 3), which became effective on January 19, 2009. The Patient Safety Rule outlines the requirements that entities must meet to become and remain listed as PSOs, the process by which the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) will accept certifications and list PSOs, and provisions pertaining to the confidentiality and privilege protections for patient safety work product (PSWP).
When specific statutory requirements are met, the information collected and the analyses and deliberations regarding the information receive confidentiality and privilege protections under this legislation. The Secretary delegated authority to the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to interpret and enforce the confidentiality protections of the Patient Safety Act (
Pursuant to the Patient Safety Rule (42 CFR 3.102), an entity that seeks to be listed as a PSO by the Secretary must certify that it meets certain requirements and, upon listing, would meet other criteria. To remain listed for renewable three-year periods, a PSO must re-certify that it meets these obligations and would continue to meet them while listed. The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule also impose other obligations discussed below that a PSO must meet to remain listed. In accordance with the requirements of the Patient Safety Rule (see,
The following forms have revisions for clarification which are described below:
1. PSO Certification for Initial Listing—This form has been revised to include clarification on the role of the primary point of contact.
2. PSO Certification for Continued Listing—This form has been revised to include clarifications on the role of the primary point of contact, more precise language about whether there are any changes to the parent organization or any additional parent organizations and an additional note to clarify how users should determine the response to the standardized way they collect patient safety work product (PSWP).
3. PSO Profile form—The form has been revised to add a new clinical discipline, “Clinical Dialysis Services”.
4. PSO Change of Listing Form—This form has been revised to note clarifications for the parent and the point of contact sections.
5. PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form—This form has been revised to include a change from street to mailing address for future contacts with delisted PSOs.
6. Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form—The form has two parts, the complaint form and the consent form. The complaint form was updated (1) to conform the notice to individuals about confidentiality of identifying information submitted on the complaint form with the existing approved OCR HIPAA Rules complaint form and (2) to update OCR contact information. The consent form was updated (1) to conform notice to individuals about confidentiality of identifying information submitted on the consent form with the existing approved OCR HIPAA Rules consent form, (2) to more fully describe OCR authorities allowing collection of information in Privacy Act of 1974 notices, and (3) to update OCR contact information.
7. Common Formats—Since the last approval, AHRQ has released Common Formats Event Reporting for Diagnostic Safety, Version 1.0 (CFER-DS V1.0) and the Common Formats for Surveillance- Hospital V1.0 (CFS-H V1.0), which is a revision/update from the last version (CFS- H V0.3 Beta).
OMB previously approved the Common Formats and forms described above in 2008, 2011, 2014, 2018, and 2021. AHRQ will use these forms, other than the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, to obtain information necessary to carry out its authority to implement the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule. This includes obtaining initial and subsequent certifications from entities seeking to be or remain listed as PSOs and for making the statutorily required determinations prior to and during an entity's period of listing as a PSO. The PSO Division, housed in AHRQ's Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, uses this information. OCR will use the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form to collect information for the initial assessment of an incoming complaint. The form is modeled on OCR's form for complaints alleging violations of the privacy of protected health information.
The PSO forms are available in a format that allows completion and submission of the information online. AHRQ has updated the electronic submission of all forms, except the Patient Safety Confidentiality Compliant For which is administered by OCR, including the capability of the system to auto populate certain fields based on prior submissions by the PSOs. In addition, paper forms can be downloaded, completed and submitted through electronic mail, to
In addition to paper submission of complaints, OCR facilitates electronic submission of complaints. First, the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form is available on the OCR website at
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent to provide the requested information and Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to provide the requested information. The total burden hours are estimated to be 100,811.58 hours annually and the total cost burden is estimated to be $4,946,824.23 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “CDC and ATSDR Health Message Testing System (HMTS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 4, 2024 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one non-substantive comment. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
CDC and ATSDR Health Message Testing System (HMTS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0572, Exp. 10/31/2024)—Extension—Office of Communications (OC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Before CDC disseminates a health message to the public, the message always undergoes scientific review. However, even though the message is based on sound scientific content, there is no guarantee that the public will understand a health message or that the message will move people to take recommended action. Communication theorists and researchers agree that for health messages to be as clear and influential as possible, target audience members or representatives must be involved in developing the messages and provisional versions of the messages must be tested with members of the target audience. Increasingly, there are circumstances when CDC must move swiftly to protect life, prevent disease, or calm public anxiety. Health message testing is even more important in these instances, because of the critical nature of the information need.
In the interest of timely health message dissemination, many programs forgo the important step of testing messages on dimensions such as clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness (
The CDC/ATSDR Health Message Testing System (HMTS), a Generic information collection, enables programs across CDC and ATSDR to collect the information they require in a timely manner to:
• Ensure quality and prevent waste in the dissemination of health information by CDC to the public;
• Refine message concepts and test draft materials for clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness to target audiences;
• Guide the action of health communication officials who are responding to health emergencies, Congressionally-mandated campaigns with short timeframes, media-generated public concern, time-limited communication opportunities, trends, and the need to refresh materials or dissemination strategies in an ongoing campaign.
Each testing instrument will be based on specific health issues or topics. Although it is not possible to develop one instrument for use in all instances, the same kinds of questions are asked in most message testing. This package includes generic questions and formats that can be used to develop health message testing data collection instruments. These include a list of screening questions, comprised of demographic and introductory questions, along with other questions that can be used to create a mix of relevant questions for each proposed message testing data collection method. However, programs may request to use additional questions if needed. Message testing questions will focus on issues such as comprehension, impressions, personal relevance, content and wording, efficacy of response, channels, and spokesperson/sponsor. Such information will enable message developers to enhance the effectiveness of messages for intended audiences. Data collection methods proposed for
For many years, CDC programs have used HMTS to test and refine message concepts and test draft materials for clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness to target audiences. Having this Generic Clearance available has enabled them to test their information and get critical health information out to the public quickly. Over the last three years, more than 27 messages have been tested using this OMB Clearance package.
CDC's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination was approved to conduct program evaluation for their Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) Awareness Campaign within target audiences—non-US-born Vietnamese and Filipino persons and the healthcare professionals (primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) that serve them. Assessing the immediate effects of campaign materials provides helpful insights that can be used to inform adjustments of campaign materials for intended audiences.
CDC's Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) is tasked with leading our nation's efforts to prevent chronic diseases by promoting good nutrition, regular physical activity, and a healthy weight. One of the key ways DNPAO does this is by providing state and community partners with practical tools to promote healthy lifestyles such as the SCHMC communication resources. It is imperative that this ad testing be conducted so that CDC/DNPAO can best support grantees and local partners by providing timely information about how specific ads resonate with key audiences. The insights gained from the ad testing also provided DNPAO with timely information to inform development of additional ads and communication materials that they will resonate with audiences and lead to intended actions/behavior changes related to increasing physical activity, reducing sugary drink consumption, and improving infant and toddler nutrition.
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) collected data to assess older adults' perceptions of products developed as part of the expansion phase of CDC's Still Going Strong Campaign. Digital products were developed as part of this effort to expand the campaign to address social connectedness and isolation. The messages conveyed the importance of social connectedness to health to maintaining a high quality of life as we age. Participants learned about how social connectedness as well as physical and mental health are interconnected and critical to the well-being of older adults.
Over 5,400 burden hours were used during the previous approval period. Because the availability of this ICR has been so critical to programs in disseminating their materials and information to the public in a timely manner, the Office of Communications is requesting approval for an estimated 2,470 annual burden hours for this three-year Extension of the information collection. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Assessing Adoption and Implementation of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Outputs” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 28, 2024, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received two non-substantive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Assessing Adoption and Implementation of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Outputs—New—National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is requesting approval of a new Generic information collection for a period of three years under the project titled, “Assessing Adoption and Implementation of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Outputs.”
With the continuation of the Government Performance and Results Act and the more recent passage of the Foundations of Evidence-Based Policy Making Act, there is an increased need for federal agencies to measure and demonstrate their impact. However, measuring impact is challenging, especially for organizations that have a science-driven mission because of the time it takes to move from basic to applied research. Demonstrating attribution (cause and effect relationships) is particularly challenging for research organizations.
NIOSH research is often designed to collect implementation and adoption data through document reviews of NIOSH records, including grantee final reports, and through interviews with NIOSH researchers (federal employees). While commonly recognized metrics, these data sources are not comprehensive, representative, or informative of the adoption and implementation of NIOSH products and efforts. Further, the design and execution of research projects has hindered research and program leaders prioritizing information collections to understand and assess the adoption and implementation of research efforts and products.
The proposed generic information collection package would allow researchers to expeditiously pursue efforts to provide NIOSH with critical information to inform mission-driven needs. Additionally, the proposed efforts go beyond simply measuring customer satisfaction and rather seek to advance NIOSH's burden, need, and impact framework for future research while also endeavoring to execute the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance regarding the Foundations of Evidence-Based Policymaking Act.
Respondents are expected to consist of users and potential users of NIOSH products including subject matter expects, former NIOSH funding recipients, and intermediary and end users. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 17,150 total burden hours with an estimated annual burden of 6,069 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has determined that NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 grams (g), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Awo Archampong-Gray, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 g, is the subject of NDA 205053, held by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and initially approved on November 25, 2013. Noxafil delayed-release tablets are indicated for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in adults and pediatric patients 13 years of age and older. In addition, NOXAFIL is indicated for the prophylaxis of invasive Aspergillus and Candida infections in patients who are at high risk of developing these infections due to being severely immunocompromised, such as hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients with graft-versus-host disease or those with hematologic malignancies with prolonged neutropenia from chemotherapy as follows; for NOXAFIL delayed-release tablets: adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older who weigh greater than 40 kilograms.
NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 g, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Aizant Drug Research Solutions Private Limited, submitted a citizen petition dated September 2, 2024 (Docket No. FDA-2024-P-4163), and amended on September 4, 2024, under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, NDA 205053 was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 g, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 g, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 g, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list NOXAFIL (posaconazole) delayed-release tablets, 100 g, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before November 15, 2024.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0281-30D and project title for reference, to Sherrette A. Funn, email:
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The program is requesting a 3-year extension of its clearance.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Division of Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of availability; request for comment.
The Cybersecurity Division (CSD) within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) requests feedback on draft Product Security Bad Practices guidance. Additionally, CISA requests input on analysis or approaches currently absent from the guidance.
Written comments are requested on or before December 2, 2024. Submissions received after the deadline for receiving comments may not be considered.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CISA-2024-0028, by following the instructions below for submitting comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Kirk Lawrence; 202-617-0036;
Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by submitting written data, views, or arguments using the method identified in the aforementioned
In line with CISA's Secure by Design initiative, software manufacturers should ensure security is a core consideration from the onset of software development. CISA's draft, voluntary
The draft guidance is scoped to software manufacturers who develop software products and services, including on-premises software, cloud services, and software as a service (SaaS), used in support of critical infrastructure or NCFs.
By choosing to follow the recommendations in the draft guidance, manufacturers will signal to customers that they are taking ownership of customer security outcomes, a key secure by design principle.
CISA strongly encourage all software manufacturers to avoid the product security bad practices included in the Product Security Bad Practices guidance. The Product Security Bad Practices guidance is co-sealed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
CISA seeks comments on the draft Product Security Bad Practices guidance, in the following three categories. Note: the categories are explained in detail in the draft guidance itself, available at
1. Product properties, which describe the observable security-related qualities of a software product itself. Listed bad practices are:
a. A new product line is developed using a memory unsafe language or the manufacturer does not publish a memory safety roadmap by January 1, 2026.
b. The product includes user-provided input directly in the raw contents of a SQL database query string.
c. The product includes user-provided input directly in the raw contents of an operating system command string.
d. The product includes default passwords.
e. The product contains, at the time of release, a component with an exploitable vulnerability present on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog.
f. The product uses open-source software components that have critical known exploitable vulnerabilities.
2. Security features, which describe the security functionalities that a product supports. Listed bad practices are:
a. The baseline version of the product does not support multi-factor authentication.
b. The baseline version of the product does not make audit logs available.
3. Organizational processes and policies, which describe actions taken by a software manufacturer to ensure strong transparency in its approach to security. Listed bad practices are:
a. The organization fails to publish Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) with Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs) in a timely manner (or at all).
b. The organization fails to publish a vulnerability disclosure policy.
CISA also welcomes comments on other areas or approaches currently absent from the guidance.
This notice is issued under the authority of 6 U.S.C. 652 and 659.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 16, 2024. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1
You may submit comments, identified by docket number Docket # DHS-2024-0028, at:
○ Federal eRulemaking Portal:
The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) is an independent office tasked with resolving individual complaints from or about individuals in immigration detention regarding the potential violation of immigration detention standards or other potential misconduct. OIDO was established by Congress (sec. 106 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. 116-93).
DHS Form 405—“Case Intake Form” is intended for use by individuals wishing to submit a complaint to OIDO. Information collected will provide the office with details about the allegations the submitter seeks to have OIDO address. DHS is revising the information collection to refine several questions in Form 405 and to include an additional form, “Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third Party”. Information collected on the “Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third Party” will allow OIDO to disclose permitted information to a third party, such as the detained individual's relatives and/or representatives.
The information collected on Form 405—“Case Intake Form” allows OIDO to identify: (1) the individual submitting the complaint and their contact information; (2) the detained individual who is the subject of the complaint; (3) the government-owned or contracted facility where the individual is or was detained and for how long; and (4) relevant details about the complaint. All of this information will be used by OIDO to investigate, resolve, and if appropriate, provide redress.
Based on usability testing recommendations, DHS is revising Form 405. The form will be shortened by reducing extraneous sections, such as Question 12a (Category), Question 12b
OIDO will use the additional form, “Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third Party”, to obtain the detained individual's authorization to disclose permitted information and/or records about that individual to a third party. Information collected on the “Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third Party” will allow OIDO to disclose permitted information to a third party, such as the detained individual's relatives and/or representatives.
The use of DHS Form 405—“Case Intake Form” is the most efficient means for collecting and processing the required data. The form is available for download from the OIDO website. The PDF form can be completed online and submitted to OIDO by email or mail. Additionally, DHS Form 405—“Case Intake Form” can be submitted electronically via the myOIDO portal (
After approval of the “Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third-Party” form, an electronic version will be developed so that submitters may complete and file it via the OIDO website. Additionally, the form will be available for download from the OIDO website. The PDF form will be able to be completed online, printed out, and submitted to OIDO by email or mail or handed in person at a detention facility.
This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses or other small entities. If this information is not collected, OIDO will not be able to accomplish its Congressional mandate to provide assistance to individuals who may be affected by misconduct, excessive force, or other violations of law or detention standards. DHS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with the general information collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). The assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection is based on the Privacy Impact Assessment for the Immigration Detention Ombudsman Case Management System (IDCMS) (June 21, 2021). Additionally, the information collected is covered by DHS/ALL-020 Department of Homeland Security Internal Affairs, April 28, 2014, 79 FR 23361 and DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by the Department of Homeland Security System of Records, June 14, 2017, 82 FR 27274.
This information collection was constructed in compliance with regulations and authorities under the purview of the DHS Privacy Office, DHS OCIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, sharing, storage, information security, and retrieval of information.
The addition of the
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act for 59 species. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information on these species that has become available since the last reviews.
To ensure consideration of your information in our reviews, we must receive your comments or information on or before December 16, 2024. However, we will continue to accept new information about any species at any time.
For instructions on how to submit information for a species, see table 1 in the
To request information on specific species, contact the appropriate person in the table in the
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for wildlife) and 50 CFR 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulation at 50 CFR 424.21 requires that we publish a notice in the
A 5-year status review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:
A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
D. Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA); and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year status review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.
This notice announces 5-year status reviews for the species listed in table 1.
To ensure that a 5-year status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
If you wish to provide information for any species in Table 1, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table. You may also direct questions to those contacts (also see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, you should be aware that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can request that personal information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A list of all completed and currently active 5-year status reviews can be found at
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval by operation of law the 2024 Amendments to the Stockbridge-Munsee Community and the State of Wisconsin Gaming Compact of 1992, as Amended in 1998, 2003, and 2009 governing the operation and regulation of class III gaming activities.
The Amendment takes effect on October 16, 2024.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240,
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations for eight of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) statewide and regional Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) that have vacant positions or members whose terms are scheduled to expire. These RACs provide advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within the geographic areas for which the RACs are organized.
All nominations must be received no later than November 15, 2024.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the appropriate BLM offices listed in the
Carrie Richardson, BLM Office of Communications, at telephone: (202) 742-0625, email:
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State in which the RAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographic area of the RAC. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making.
The following must accompany all nominations:
Simultaneous with this notice, BLM State Offices will issue online announcements providing additional information for submitting nominations.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the office listed below:
Dolores Garcia, BLM Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004; Phone: (602) 417-9241; Email:
Philip Oviatt, Central California District Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762; Phone: (661) 432-4252; Email:
JD Emerson, BLM Northwest District Office, 455 Emerson Street, Craig, CO 81625; Phone: (970) 826-5101; Email:
Levi Spellman, BLM Rocky Mountain District Office, 3028 East Main Street, Cañon City, CO 81212; Phone: (719) 269-8553; Email:
D. Maggie Magee, BLM Southwest Colorado District Office, 2465 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, CO 81401; Phone: (970) 240-5323; Email:
Jamie Garcia, BLM Albuquerque District Office, 100 Sun Avenue NE, Pan American Building, Suite 330, Albuquerque, NM 87109; Phone: (505) 761-8700; Email:
Winifred Brown, BLM Pecos District Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, NM 88201; Phone: (575) 627-0272; Email:
Lisa McNee, BLM Lakeview District Office, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, OR 97630; Phone: (514) 947-6811; Email:
Megan Harper, BLM Coos Bay District Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, OR 97459; Phone: (541) 751-4353; Email:
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this investigation effective December 29, 2023, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by the U.S. Glass Producers Coalition, which is comprised of Ardagh Glass Inc. (Indianapolis, Indiana), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigation following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of glass wine bottles from China were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to § 705(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled “Certain Electronic Eyewear Products, Components Thereof, and Related Charging Apparatuses, DN 3777”; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of INGENIOSPEC, LLC on October 10, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic eyewear products, components thereof, and related charging apparatuses. The complaint names as respondents: ByteDance, Ltd. of China; ByteDance Inc. of Wilmington, DE; Qingdao Chuangjian Weilai Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Funnico Inc. of San Jose, CA; PICO Immersive Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; HTC Corporation of Taiwan; HTC Europe Co. Ltd. of United Kingdom; HTC Poland SP Z O.O. of Poland; Meta Platforms, Inc. of Menlo Park, CA; Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC of Menlo Park, CA; Meta Platforms Technologies Ireland Ltd. of Ireland; Meta Platforms Technologies UK Ltd. of United Kingdom; Valve Corporation of Bellevue, WA; and Valve GmbH Corporation of Germany. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3777”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
The meeting will be held on November 1, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (ET).
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at (202) 317-3648 or
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will hold a teleconference meeting on November 1, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (ET). The meeting will be closed to the public.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of request for information.
As part of its implementation of Executive order,
Consideration will be given to written comments received by December 16, 2024.
Please submit comments via
Kevin Herms, Office of Management and Budget, via email at
Commercially available information (CAI) takes many forms and, when used responsibly, supports many of the missions carried out by Executive Branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) on behalf of the American people. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 14110 defines CAI as “any information or data about an individual or group of individuals, including an individual's or group of individuals' device or location, that is made available or obtainable and sold, leased, or licensed to the general public or to governmental or non-governmental entities.”
While responsible use of CAI may support agency missions, an agency's collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, and disposition (hereafter “handling”) of CAI containing PII also can present privacy risks. For example, factors including the sensitivity and volume of PII contained in some CAI may exacerbate privacy risks and limit the application of key principles that are foundational to agency handling of PII, such as data minimization, transparency, and individual participation. As discussed in OMB Circular A-130, when considering the privacy risks associated with their handling of PII, agencies are responsible for evaluating the sensitivity of the data elements individually and when grouped together, as well as considering the volume of PII. These considerations are particularly important for agency handling of CAI, as participants in an August 2023 White House roundtable on data broker practices “explained how data brokers purchase or acquire large volumes of exceedingly detailed data about people including geolocation and health information—often without their knowledge or consent.”
Executive Order 14110 identified agency practices related to CAI, particularly CAI that contains PII and including CAI procured from data brokers and CAI procured and processed indirectly through vendors, as an area for OMB to evaluate in relation to mitigating privacy risks potentially exacerbated by AI. Specifically, section 9(a)(i) and (ii) of Executive Order 14110 instructs OMB to “evaluate and take steps to identify [CAI] procured by agencies, particularly CAI that contains [PII]” and “evaluate . . . agency standards and procedures associated with the [handling] of CAI that contains [PII].”
As part of its implementation of Executive Order 14110, OMB is seeking public comment and input for OMB's consideration as it evaluates agency policies and procedures associated with the handling of CAI containing PII and assesses how agencies may mitigate privacy risks specifically arising from their handling of CAI containing PII. Per section 9(a)(i) and (ii) of Executive Order 14110, OMB's work in this area and therefore the scope of this RFI does not include CAI containing PII when it is used for the purposes of national security.
OMB seeks responses to the following questions:
1. How does AI potentially exacerbate privacy risks associated with agency handling of CAI containing PII?
a. What are the key privacy risks associated with agencies' handling of CAI containing PII that OMB should consider and why?
2. What frameworks, models, or best practices should OMB consider as it evaluates agency standards and procedures associated with the handling of CAI containing PII and considers potential guidance to agencies on ways to mitigate privacy risks from agencies' handling of CAI containing PII?
3. What, if any, changes to its current guidance should OMB consider to improve how agencies address and mitigate the privacy risks that may be associated with their handling of CAI containing PII?
a. Are there specific policies, standards, or procedures governing agencies' handling of CAI containing PII that OMB should include in guidance?
4. What, if any, implementation or other challenges could arise with using the definition of CAI in Executive Order 14110 to govern agency handling of CAI containing PII?
a. What, if any, aspects of the definition should OMB seek to clarify through guidance to address any such challenges?
5. Agencies provide transparency into the handling of PII through various means (
6. What other approaches to sharing information with the public about how agencies handle CAI containing PII would be most useful, for example, to ensure data quality and to enhance public trust?
a. What type of information on this topic should agencies share publicly?
b. When, in what form, and to whom should agencies provide that information?
c. Should agencies disclose to individuals when CAI containing PII is used to inform a decision with respect to those individuals (
i. What steps could agencies take to provide individuals with an opportunity to seek amendment of the CAI before agencies use it to make such decisions?
ii. What other steps could agencies take to verify accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness of the CAI before using it to make decisions about individuals?
7. Should agencies establish and maintain comprehensive inventories of CAI containing PII that they handle? Why or why not?
a. If so, should these agency CAI inventories be publicly available? Why or why not?
i. Are there any categories of CAI containing PII that should not be included in a public inventory? If so, what risks support that exclusion?
ii. How would public CAI inventories be useful to stakeholders?
8. Should agencies create periodic reports on their handling of CAI containing PII? Why or why not?
a. If so, what information should be included in these reports, and to whom should OMB direct agencies to send these reports?
b. If so, should agencies make these reports publicly available and by what means (
9. Should agencies handle CAI containing PII differently depending on the purpose for which it is used? Why or why not?
a. If so, what should be the criteria for any differences in handling CAI with PII, and what should those differences in handling be?
b. What, if any, specific use cases or scenarios are examples of where OMB guidance should limit or restrict how agencies handle CAI containing PII? What risks justify those limitations or restrictions?
c. Does agency input of CAI containing PII into an AI system, as defined by section 3 of Executive Order 14110, alter privacy risks and how?
i. How should agencies mitigate privacy risks associated with such input of CAI in an AI system?
ii. Does appropriate mitigation of privacy risks vary based on the type of AI system into which CAI is input and the purposes of that AI system? If so, how should those factors be considered in the mitigation of privacy risks?
10. What, if any, factors should OMB guidance include for agencies' consideration in their evaluation of how they can mitigate privacy risks associated with their handling of CAI containing PII (
a. How should agencies document their evaluation of these factors related to the handling of CAI containing PII?
b. Should agencies' evaluation of these factors related to the handling of CAI containing PII be made public and, if so, when and how?
c. Should a differentiation be made between CAI maintained on agency systems and CAI accessed or queried through third parties? What factors should OMB consider in guidance in relation to CAI accessed or queried through third parties?
11. What, if any, means of interagency information sharing should be considered to allow agencies to report problems with CAI containing PII (
12. What, if any, guidance should OMB provide to agencies regarding how their agreements with third parties address privacy requirements for CAI containing PII (
a. Should such agreements require third-party providers of CAI to provide information about the source of data, demonstrate the quality, reliability and validity of the data, attest to compliance with relevant laws and policies, or comply with certain privacy requirements? Why or why not? How might agencies require third-party providers to demonstrate the quality, reliability, and validity of the CAI?
b. Should such agreements require third-party providers of CAI to adopt policies aimed at allowing individuals access to information about them held by the third-party provider, the ability to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information held by a third-party provider of CAI containing PII, or control over how the information about them is used or shared? Why or why not?
c. Are there other practices to mitigate privacy risks that agencies might require within agreements with third parties?
13. Should OMB guidance require agencies to manage CAI governance—including policies, procedures, and oversight of agency use of CAI—through a uniform mechanism?
14. What else should OMB consider when evaluating potential guidance to agencies on ways to mitigate privacy risks from agencies' activities related to CAI containing PII?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). The ASAP will hold its Fourth Quarterly Meeting for 2024. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight.
Thursday, October 31, 2024, 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in information below under
Ms. Lisa M. Hackley, ASAP Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1947 or
As noted above, this meeting is only available telephonically. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-566-6133; passcode 8343253 and then the # sign. At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel limited to the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5 minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Lisa M. Hackley at
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Monday, October 28, 2024, 12-1:30 p.m. All times are eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in and Webinar information below under
Lucia Tsaoussi, Designated Federal Officer, Earth Scince Advisory Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, via email at
As noted above, this meeting will be open to the public via Webinar and telephonically. Webinar connectivity information is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webinar event, you may use your computer or provide your phone number to receive a call back, otherwise, call the U.S. toll conference number listed. On Monday, October 28, 2024, the event address for attendees is: webinar web link
The webinar number is 2830 385 0130 and the webinar password is u4sWmR8XZ@4. If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is 1-929-251-9612 or 1-213-269-5091 and access code is 2830 385 0130 and password is 84796789.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topic:
It is imperative that these meeting be held on these days to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
For more information, please visit
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB review, comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this Notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning the new three-year approval of the IMLS administered Public Libraries Survey. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this Notice to
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Matthew Birnbaum, Ph.D., Director of Research and Evaluation, Office of Research and Evaluation, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Birnbaum can be reached by telephone: 202-653-4760, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's libraries and museums. We advance, support, and empower America's museums, libraries, and related organizations through grant making, research, and policy development. To learn more, visit
Pursuant to Public Law 107-279, this Public Libraries Survey collects annual descriptive data on the universe of public libraries in the United States and the Outlying Areas. Information such as public service hours per year, circulation of library books, number of librarians, population of legal service area, expenditures for library collection, programs for children and young adults, staff salary data, and access to technology would be collected. The request includes new public library data regarding programs and other physical collections. The Public Libraries Survey has been conducted by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the clearance number 3137-0074, which expires November 30, 2024. This action is to request a new three-year approval.
The National Science Board's (NSB) Committee on External Engagement hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Friday, October 18, 2024, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.
Open.
The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's Opening Remarks; planning for NSF-NSB's 75th anniversary events; planning for Congressional engagement; and other business, including member ideas and questions.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Nadine Lymn,
National Transportation Safety Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the National Transportation Safety Board, Performance Review Board (PRB).
Anh Bolles, Executive Resources Manager, Human Capital Management and Training, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594-0001, (202) 314-6355.
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, United States Code requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards (PRB). The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive.
The following have been designated as members of the 2024 Performance Review Board of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):
Ms. Veronica Marshall, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Capital Management and Training, National Transportation Safety Board, PRB Chair.
Mr. Timothy LeBaron, Director, Office of Aviation Safety, National Transportation Safety Board.
Mr. Akbar Sultan, Director, Airspace Operations and Safety Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Ms. Kathryn Catania, Deputy Director, Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications, National Transportation Safety Board (alternate member to review the evaluations of SES members serving on this PRB).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and accompanying environmental assessment (EA) regarding the NRC's consideration of a license amendment request from General Electric Hitachi (GEH or the licensee) seeking approval of a license termination plan (LTP) for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) Developmental Power Reactor (DPR)-1. If approved, the amendment would add a license condition to the license reflecting the NRC's approval of its LTP. Based on the EA, the NRC staff has concluded that there will be no significant impacts to environmental resources from the requested license amendment, and therefore, a FONSI is appropriate.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available September 30, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0175 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jill Caverly, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-76744; email:
The NRC is considering issuance of a license amendment for approval of an LTP for the VBWR DPR-1 located in Alameda County, California, as part of a part 50 of title 10 of the
General Electric (GE) was issued a license for Construction Permit Power Reactor-3 to construct and operate the VBWR on May 14, 1956, as DPR. License CX-2 to operate DPR was issued on July 29, 1957, and initial criticality was achieved on August 3, 1957. License DPR-1 was issued to GE on August 31, 1957, and full power was attained on October 19, 1957. The VBWR ceased operations on December 9, 1963, was defueled on December 24, 1963, and GE was issued a license to possess but not operate the VBWR by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of the NRC, on September 9, 1965. The license was renewed in 1973 and has remained effective under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.51(b). On October 22, 2007, license DPR-1 amendment 21 was issued, transitioning ownership of the VBWR from GE to GEH.
The facility has been maintained in SAFSTOR (
The licensee submitted the LTP on September 15, 2023, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9). The NRC held a public meeting related to the LTP request in Pleasanton, California, on May 21, 2024. The meeting covered the NRC's decommissioning process, the process for approving the LTP, and addressed public questions and comments on the LTP.
The proposed action is the review and subsequent approval, if appropriate, of a license amendment to approve the LTP for the VBWR. If approved, the amendment would add a license condition reflecting the NRC's approval of the LTP and establishing criteria for determining when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval. The proposed action is described in the LTP application dated September 15, 2023, an application supplement dated October 31, 2023, and responses to requests for additional information.
The purpose of and need for the proposed action is to allow completion of decommissioning of the VBWR site, termination of the VBWR operating license by the NRC, and subsequent release of the site for unrestricted use. The NRC regulation at 10 CFR 50.82 sets forth the process for the licensee to decommission its nuclear power plant, including submission of the LTP. The NRC will approve the LTP, provided that the LTP meets the criteria in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10).
The NRC staff considered the potential impacts of the proposed action on land use; visual and scenic resources/aesthetics; climatology, meteorology, and air quality; noise; geology and soils; water resources; historic and cultural resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; public and occupational health; transportation and traffic; environmental justice; and waste management. The final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586 or Decommissioning GEIS) generically addressed many of the potential environmental impacts of decommissioning at the VBWR. During its review of the LTP, the NRC concluded that the impacts for most resource areas—onsite land use; water resources; air quality; ecology within the operational area; socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources within the operational area; aesthetics; noise; and transportation—were still bounded by the generic environmental impacts statement in the Decommissioning GEIS. Therefore, the NRC does not expect impacts associated with these issues beyond those discussed in the NUREG-0586, which concluded that the impact level for these issues was SMALL.
In the EA, the NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts on the six site-specific environmental resource areas as well as the five resource areas not evaluated in the Decommissioning GEIS and did not identify any significant impacts. There are no planned activities outside of the operational area, and the licensee plans to use best management practices and approved decommissioning practices for any decommissioning activities. Therefore, the proposed action would result in no significant impacts and there would be no significant cumulative effects when added to the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions at the VBWR site.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered the “no-action” alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the LTP or the license amendment request because regulatory requirements have not been met.
If the NRC was unable to approve the LTP because the regulatory requirements were not met, GEH would need to take additional actions to prepare an LTP that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10). Under that scenario, GEH would resubmit the LTP, activities at the VBWR would likely continue, and the environmental impacts would not change as a result of the additional time required for the LTP resubmission.
On August 13, 2024, the NRC staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the State of California Department of Public Health for its review and comment. The State responded in a letter dated September 12, 2024. The NRC staff updated the EA to incorporate the State's comments where appropriate.
Based on its review of the proposed license amendment request, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that issuing the requested amendment, if appropriate, amending GEH's DPR-1 license would not significantly affect the quality of human environment. No significant radiological or non-radiological impacts are expected from the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, “Determinations based on environmental assessment,” preparation of an EIS is not required for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, “Finding of no significant impact,” a FONSI is appropriate. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), this FONSI incorporates the EA set forth in this notice by reference.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved collection, Leadership Assessment Surveys. OPM is requesting approval of the OPM Leadership 360
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 16, 2024. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number and title, by the following method:
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, Rm. 2469 NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Coty Hoover, C/O Henry Thibodeaux, via phone at 202-606-8001, or via email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions performs assessment and related consultation activities for Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. The assessments are authorized by various statutes and regulations: Section 4702 of Title 5, U.S.C.; E.O. 12862; E.O. 13715; Section 1128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136; 5 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103(a)(5), 1104, 1302, 3301, 3302, 4702, 7701 note; E.O. 13197, 66 FR 7853, 3 CFR 748 (2002); E.O. 10577, 12 FR 1259, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; and Section 4703 of Title 5, United States Code.
This collection request includes surveys we currently use and plan to use during the next three years to measure Federal leaders' effectiveness. These surveys all measure leadership characteristics. Non-Federal respondents will almost never receive more than one of these surveys. All these surveys consist of Likert-type, mark-one, and mark-all-that-apply items, and may include a small number of open-ended comment items. OPM's Leadership 360
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's schedule of credits at Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a). Specifically, with respect to its schedule of credits for non-displayed midpoint orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity, the Exchange proposes to (i) add a new credit in Tapes A, B, and C, (ii) cap the maximum credit per share executed that a member can receive when certain requirements are met within Section 118(a)(1), and (iii) reorder the schedule of credits.
The Exchange proposes to provide a new supplemental credit of $0.0001 with a maximum cap of $0.0029 for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) if the member executes a daily average of at least 5 million shares of non-displayed liquidity through M-ELO. This change will apply to Tapes A, B, and C. The purpose of the new credit is to incentivize liquidity adding activity and provide an incentive to members that provide non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange to do so through M-ELO. The Exchange believes that if such incentive is effective, then any ensuing increase in liquidity to the Exchange will improve market quality, to the benefit of all participants.
The Exchange currently provides a supplemental credit for midpoint orders
The existing supplemental credit will continue alongside the new one. The proposed credit has a cap of $0.0029, allowing members to use the new $0.0001 without affecting other credits. This applies to Tapes A, B, and C. The goal is to encourage liquidity-adding activity and incentivize members providing non-displayed liquidity via M-ELO.
The Exchange notes that it proposes to cap combined regular and supplemental credits at $0.0029 to manage the costs to the Exchange of providing these incentives. The Exchange has only limited resources available to it for incentive programs, and it must ensure that it allocates such resources appropriately to optimize their intended impacts.
Lastly, for clarifying purposes, the Exchange proposes to reorder the schedule of credits for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity by adding the aforementioned supplemental credit to the rebate schedule as number 4 and moving “All other non-displayed orders” to number 5.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish a new supplemental credit of $0.0001 with a maximum of up to $0.0029 for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) if the member executes an ADV of at least 5 million shares of non-displayed liquidity through M-ELO for Tapes A, B, and C. This proposal is reasonable because it will incentivize liquidity adding activity and provide an incentive to members that provide non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange to do so through midpoint orders. The Exchange believes that if such incentive is effective, then any ensuring increase in liquidity to the Exchange will improve market quality, to the benefit of all participants.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to cap the amount of combined regular and supplemental credits it proposes to offer members that execute an ADV of at least 5 million shares of non-displayed liquidity through M-ELO to $0.0029 per share executed. This cap will allow the Exchange to manage its costs of providing these incentives. The Exchange has only limited resources available to it for incentive programs, and it must ensure that it allocates such resources appropriately to optimize their intended impacts.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to reorder the schedule of credits for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity to increase clarity in the Rules, consistent with the public interest and protection of investors.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable to establish a new supplemental transaction credit and otherwise increase the amount of net credit (regular plus supplemental) a member may receive for providing non-displayed liquidity through midpoint orders. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on the Exchange, the Exchange will experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed clarifying changes (
Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange believes that its proposals are not unfairly discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various industries—from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular telephone data plans—that use it to reward the loyalty of their best customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it enhances price discovery and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposals to adopt a new supplemental credit for providing non-displayed liquidity through midpoint orders, impose a cap on the amount of combined regular and supplemental credits it proposes to offer members receiving certain supplemental credits, and make clarifying changes, as described above, are not unfairly discriminatory because the changes are not intended to advantage any particular member and will be applied uniformly to all members. Moreover, the proposals stand to improve the overall market quality of the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants, by incentivizing members to increase the extent of their liquidity adding activity in midpoint orders on the Exchange.
Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
As noted above, the Exchange's proposals to add a new supplemental transaction credit, impose a cap on the maximum rebate offered to members receiving certain supplemental credits, and make clarifying changes are intended to have market-improving effects, to the benefit of all members. Any member may elect to achieve the level of liquidity in midpoint orders required to qualify for the new credit. The other proposed changes also apply equally and will be applied uniformly to all members.
The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the Exchange's fee schedule is not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its credits and fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their credit and own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which credit or fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The proposed new supplemental credit is reflective of this competition because, as a threshold issue, even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume, the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to credit and fee changes. This is an addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues which comprises more than 40% of industry volume in recent months.
The Exchange's proposal to add a new supplemental transaction credit is pro-competitive in that the Exchange intends for the credit to increase liquidity addition activity in midpoint orders on the Exchange, thereby rendering the Exchange more attractive and vibrant to participants.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a provision that the Exchange will not review a compliance plan submitted by a listed company that is below compliance with a continued listing standard if the company owes any unpaid fees to the Exchange and will instead immediately commence suspension and delisting procedures if such fees are not paid in full by the plan submission deadline or at the time of any required periodic review of such plan. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth in Exhibit 5 attached hereto. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Section 802.02 (“Evaluation and Follow-Up Procedures for Domestic Companies”) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) provides that when the Exchange identifies a domestic listed company as being below certain continued listing criteria set forth in Section 802.01 of the Manual (and not able to otherwise qualify under an original listing standard), the Exchange will notify the company of such noncompliance by letter and provide the company with an opportunity to provide the Exchange with a plan (the “Plan”) advising the Exchange of definitive action the company has taken, or is taking, that would bring it into conformity with continued listing standards within 18 months of receipt of the letter. Similarly, Section 802.03 (“Continued Listing—Evaluation and Follow-up Procedures for Non-U.S. Companies”) sets forth provisions under which non-U.S. listed companies can submit a Plan to cure noncompliance with continued listing standards.
If a company submits a Plan pursuant to Sections 802.02 or 802.03, it must identify specific quarterly or semi-annual milestones against which the Exchange will evaluate the company's progress. The company has 45 days (in the case of a domestic company subject to Section 802.02) (the “Domestic Plan Deadline”) or 90 days (in the case of a non-U.S. company subject to Section 802.03) (the “Non-U.S. Plan Deadline” and, together with the Domestic Plan Deadline, the “Plan Deadline”) from the receipt of a letter from the Exchange identifying an event of noncompliance to submit its Plan to the Exchange for review; otherwise, suspension and delisting procedures will commence in accordance with Section 804.00 of the Manual. The Plan must demonstrate how the company will return to compliance with the applicable continued listing standard by the end of the Plan period. All companies submitting a Plan must include
If the Exchange accepts the Plan, the Exchange will review the company for compliance with the Plan on either a quarterly basis (in the case of a domestic company) or a semi-annual basis (in the case of a non-U.S. company). If the company fails to meet the material aspects of the Plan or any of the quarterly or semi-annual milestones, the Exchange will review the circumstances and variance, and determine whether such variance warrants commencement of suspension and delisting procedures. Should the Exchange determine to proceed with suspension and delisting procedures in accordance with Section 804.00, it may do so regardless of the company's continued listing status at that time. The Exchange will deem the Plan period over prior to the end of the 18 months if a company is able to demonstrate returning to compliance with the applicable continued listing standards, or achieves the ability to qualify under an original listing standard, for a period of two consecutive quarters. In any event, a company that does not meet continued listing standards at the end of the 18-month period, will be subject to the prompt initiation of suspension and delisting procedures in accordance with Section 804.00.
The Exchange staff has to undertake a significant amount of work in reviewing and analyzing each Plan submitted by a noncompliant company. In addition, the review of quarterly or semi-annual updates with respect to each Plan requires significant additional work by Exchange staff. Given the significant work required to review and analyze Plans, as well as to undertake the required quarterly or semi-annual review with respect to a Plan, the Exchange believes it is especially important to ensure that companies that wish to have a Plan accepted or continued by the Exchange have paid all outstanding annual and listing fees (as set forth in the Manual in Section 902.00
Section 802.01D of the Manual provides that the Exchange may in its sole discretion subject a listed company to the procedures outlined in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 (or commence immediate suspension and delisting procedures) if the company has “violated” any of its agreements with the Exchange or in the event of a “breach by the company of the terms of its listing agreement.” The Exchange notes that the NYSE listing agreement includes an agreement by the listing applicant to “pay when due all fees associated with its listing of securities on the Exchange, in accordance with the Exchange's rules.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change furthers the protection of investors in that it will help the Exchange to ensure that it has sufficient resources to fund its regulatory activities relating to the review and approval and the ongoing monitoring of Plans submitted by companies that are below continued listing standards.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed requirement is unfairly discriminatory as it would only require listed companies to pay fees that were already due and payable and ensure payment of those fees in connection with a process that is resource-intensive and costly for the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange notes that Section 802.03 provides non-U.S. companies with 90 days from the receipt of notice of non-compliance to submit a Plan to the Exchange, while Section 802.02 provides domestic companies with only a 45-day period to do so. In addition, Section 802.03 subjects non-U.S. companies to a semi-annual review during any ongoing Plan process, while Section 802.02 subjects domestic companies to a quarterly review process. In light of this existing distinction in the rules, the Exchange believes it is not discriminatory to give non-compliant non-U.S. companies a period to pay overdue fees in connection with any initial Plan acceptance or continuing Plan review that is consistent with the provisions applicable to non-U.S. companies set forth in Section 802.03 rather than the provisions applicable to domestic companies set forth in Section 802.02.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
As the proposal would not result in any change in the cost of a listing on the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that it imposes any additional burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to (i) amend and extend the SPIKES options Market Maker Incentive Program (the “Incentive Program”) until January 31, 2025; and (ii) remove waivers for certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) amend and extend the SPIKES options Market Maker Incentive Program (the “Incentive Program”) until January 31, 2025; and (ii) remove waivers for certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products.
On October 12, 2018, the Exchange received approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) to list and trade on the Exchange options on the SPIKES® Index, a new index that measures expected 30-day volatility of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (commonly known and referred to by its ticker symbol, “SPY”).
On May 31, 2019, the Exchange filed its first proposal in a series of proposals with the Commission to amend the Fee Schedule to waive certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on the SPIKES Index) beginning June 1, 2019, through September 30, 2024.
On September 30, 2021, the Exchange filed its initial proposal (SR-MIAX-2021-45) to implement the Incentive Program for SPIKES options to incentivize Market Makers to improve liquidity, available volume, and the quote spread width of SPIKES options beginning October 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2021.
Between December 23, 2021, and June 28, 2024, the Exchange filed several proposals to extend the Incentive Program, with the last extension period ending September 30, 2024.
The Exchange now proposes to amend and extend the Incentive Program for SPIKES options to continue to incentivize Market Makers to improve liquidity and available volume in SPIKES options by amending the quotes spread width requirements and the amounts of the incentive compensation pools.
Currently, to be eligible to participate in the Incentive Program, a Market Maker must meet certain minimum requirements related to quote spread width in certain in-the-money (ITM) and out-of-the-money (OTM) options as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular.
The Exchange now proposes to double the maximum quote spread width parameters for both ITM options and OTM options. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the maximum quote spread width from 150 bps to 300 bps for a Market Maker quoting ITM options to be eligible to participate in the Incentive Program. The Exchange also proposes to increase the maximum quote spread width from 100 bps to 200 bps for a Market Maker quoting OTM options to be eligible to participate in the Incentive Program. The Exchange will communicate the new requirements of the Incentive Program to Members via Regulatory Circular.
Currently, the first pool (Incentive 1) is capped at $40,000 per month, which is allocated to Market Makers that meet the minimum requirements of the Incentive Program. Market Makers are required to meet minimum spread width requirements in a select number of ITM and OTM SPIKES option contracts as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the terms of Incentive 1. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce the total compensation pool of Incentive 1 from $40,000 per month to $10,000 per month. The Exchange also proposes to reduce the maximum amount available to each individual Market Maker for satisfying the minimum requirements of the Incentive Program from $10,000 per month to $5,000 per month. The Exchange proposes that, in the event that more than two Market Makers meet the requirements of Incentive 1, each qualifying Market Maker is entitled to receive a pro-rated share of the $10,000 monthly compensation pool dependent upon the number of qualifying Market Makers in that particular month.
Currently, the second pool (Incentive 2) is capped at a total amount of $100,000 per month which is used during the Incentive Program to further incentivize Market Makers who meet or exceed the requirements of Incentive 1 (“qualifying Market Makers”) to provide tighter quote width spreads with the total compensation pool amount based on qualifying Market Makers' improvement value over the minimum requirement score. The Exchange ranks each qualifying Market Maker's quote width spread relative to each other qualifying Market Maker's quote width spread. Market Makers with tighter spreads in certain strikes, as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular,
The Exchange now proposes to amend the terms of Incentive 2. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce the total compensation pool of Incentive 2 from a maximum of $100,000 per month to a maximum of $25,000 per month. The Exchange also proposes to reduce the maximum amount available to each individual Market Maker for satisfying the requirements of Incentive 2 from $25,000 per month to $12,500 per month.
The purpose of the proposed changes is for business reasons. The Exchange proposes to lower the quoting requirements because the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options. The Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to lower the threshold of the quoting standards for the Incentive Program to further encourage more SPIKES Market Makers to participate in the Incentive Program. The Exchange also proposes to reduce the compensation pools and the maximum amount available to each individual Market Maker for satisfying and/or exceeding the minimum requirements of the Incentive Program because the Exchange proposes to lower the quoting requirements for the Incentive Program.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to extend the Incentive Program until January 31, 2025. The purpose of this extension is to continue to incentivize Market Makers to provide quotes in SPIKES options and to improve liquidity and available volume.
The Exchange will announce the amendment and extension of the Incentive Program to all Members via a Regulatory Circular.
Currently, the Exchange offers fee waivers for (i) Membership Application fees, (ii) monthly Market Maker Trading Permit fees, (iii) Member API Testing and Certification fees, and (iv) monthly MEI Port fees, to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES). The fee waivers for the aforementioned fees will end on September 30, 2024. The Exchange now proposes to remove the aforementioned fee waivers from the Fee Schedule once they expire on September 30, 2024.
The Exchange currently assesses a one-time Membership Application fee for applications of potential Members. The Exchange assesses a one-time Membership Application fee on the earlier of (i) the date the applicant is certified in the membership system, or (ii) once an application for MIAX membership is finally denied. The one-time application fee is based upon the
The Exchange now proposes to remove the waiver for the one-time Membership Application fee of $3,000 for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) once it expires on September 30, 2024. The Exchange notes that the only Proprietary Product offered by the Exchange is SPIKES options. The Exchange initially waived the Membership Application fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to attract new market participants to trade SPIKES options. Since the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options, and the Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options, the Exchange will no longer waive the Membership Application fee to attract market participants to trade SPIKES options.
The Exchange issues Trading Permits that confer the ability to transact on the Exchange. MIAX Trading Permits are issued to Market Makers and EEMs. Members receiving Trading Permits during a particular calendar month are assessed monthly Trading Permit fees as set forth in the Fee Schedule. As it relates to Market Makers, the Exchange currently assesses a monthly Trading Permit fee in any month the Market Maker is certified in the membership system, is credentialed to use one or more MIAX MEI Ports in the production environment and is assigned to quote in one or more classes. The Exchange assesses the monthly Market Maker Trading Permit fee for its Market Makers based on the greatest number of classes listed on the Exchange that the Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month and the applicable fee rate is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national average daily volume measurements. A Market Maker is assessed a monthly Trading Permit fee according to the following table:
However, the Exchange currently offers a waiver of the Trading Permit fee for Market Makers that will trade solely in Proprietary Products. This waiver is set to expire on September 30, 2024.
The Exchange now proposes to remove the waiver for the monthly Trading Permit fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) once it expires on September 30, 2024. The Exchange notes that the only Proprietary Products offered by the Exchange is SPIKES options. The Exchange initially waived the monthly Trading Permit fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to attract new market participants to trade SPIKES options. Since the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options, and the Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options, the Exchange will no longer waive the monthly Trading Permit fee to attract market participants to trade SPIKES options. The Exchange also notes that there are no Market Makers trading solely in SPIKES options, thus the Exchange believes that removing the waiver for the monthly Trading Permit fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) would have no impact on Members or the public.
The Exchange assesses an API Testing and Certification fee to all Members depending upon Membership type. An API makes it possible for Members' software to communicate with MIAX software applications, and is subject to Members testing with, and certification by, MIAX. The Exchange offers four types of interfaces: (i) the Financial Information Exchange Port (“FIX Port”),
API Testing and Certification fees for Market Makers are assessed (i) initially per API for CTD and MEI ports in the month the Market Maker has been credentialed to use one or more ports in the production environment for the tested API and the Market Maker has been assigned to quote in one or more classes, and (ii) each time a Market Maker initiates a change to its system that requires testing and certification. API Testing and Certification fees will not be assessed in situations where the Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the Exchange's system that requires testing and certification. The Exchange currently assesses a Market Maker an API Testing and Certification fee of $2,500. The API Testing and Certification fees represent costs incurred by the Exchange as it works with each Member for testing and certifying that the Member's software systems communicate properly with the Exchange's interfaces. However, the Exchange currently offers a waiver of the API Testing and Certification Fee for Market Makers that will trade solely in Proprietary Products. This waiver is set to expire on September 30, 2024.
The Exchange now proposes to remove the waiver of the API Testing and Certification fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) from the Fee Schedule once it expires on September 30, 2024. The Exchange notes that the only Proprietary Products offered by the Exchange is SPIKES options. The Exchange initially waived the API Testing and Certification fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to attract new market participants to trade SPIKES options. Since the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options, and the Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options, the Exchange will no longer waive the API Testing and Certification fee to attract market participants to trade SPIKES options. The Exchange also notes that there is no Market Makers trading solely in SPIKES options, thus the Exchange believes that removing the waiver for the API Testing and Certification fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) would have no impact on Members or the public.
The Exchange assesses monthly MEI Port fees to Market Makers in each month the Member has been credentialed to use the MEI Port in the production environment and has been assigned to quote in at least one class. The amount of the monthly MEI Port fee is based upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was assigned to quote on any given day within the calendar month, and upon the class volume percentages set forth in the Fee Schedule. The class volume percentage is based on the total national average daily volume in classes listed on the Exchange in the prior calendar quarter. Newly listed option classes are excluded from the calculation of the monthly MEI Port fee until the calendar quarter following their listing, at which time the newly listed option classes will be included in both the per class count and the percentage of total national average daily volume. The Exchange assesses Market Makers the monthly MEI Port fee based on the greatest number of classes listed on the Exchange that the Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month and the applicable fee rate that is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national average daily volume measurement. The Exchange assesses MEI Port fees on Market Makers according to the following table:
The Exchange now proposes to remove the waiver of the monthly MEI Port fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) once it expires on September 30, 2024. The Exchange notes that the only Proprietary Product offered by the Exchange is SPIKES options. The Exchange initially waived the monthly MEI Port fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to attract new market participants to trade SPIKES options. Since the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options, and the Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options, the Exchange will no longer waive the monthly MEI Port fee to attract market participants to trade SPIKES options. The Exchange also notes that there is no Market Makers trading solely in SPIKES options, thus the Exchange believes that removing the waiver for the monthly MEI Port fee for
The proposed fee changes are effective beginning October 1, 2024.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to modify the Incentive Program for Market Makers in SPIKES options. The amendment to the Incentive Program is reasonably designed because the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options. The Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options. Lowering the quoting requirements for the Incentive Program would encourage more Market Makers to participate in the Incentive Program. Given that the Exchange proposes to lower the threshold of the quoting standards for the Incentive Program, accordingly the Exchange proposes to reduce the compensation pools and the maximum amount available to each individual Market Maker for satisfying and/or exceeding the minimum requirements of the Incentive Program. The Incentive Program is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the amendment to the Incentive Program applies to all SPIKES Market Makers. Additionally, if a SPIKES Market Maker does not satisfy the requirements of Incentive 1 or 2, then that Market Maker simply will not receive the rebate offered by the Incentive Program for that month.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to extend the Incentive Program for Market Makers in SPIKES options until January 31, 2025. It will continue to benefit all market participants trading in SPIKES options. SPIKES options is a Proprietary Product on the Exchange and the continuation of the Incentive Program encourages SPIKES Market Makers to satisfy a heightened quoting standard, average quote size, and time in market. A continued increase in quoting activity and tight quotes may yield a corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, which benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing greater execution incentives and opportunities, while promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
The Exchange believes that the Incentive Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to promote SPIKES options liquidity, which may increase trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to operate the Incentive Program for a continued limited period of time to strengthen market quality for all market participants. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit those Members who are eligible to participate in the Incentive Program and will also continue to benefit those Members who are not eligible to participate in the Incentive Program by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposal to remove the fee waivers for certain non-transaction fees for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products is reasonable. The Exchange initially waived certain non-transaction fees for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to attract new market participants to trade SPIKES options. Since the Exchange is no longer listing new expiration months in SPIKES options, and the Exchange anticipates that there will be no expiration months available for trading following the expiration of the January 2025 SPIKES options, the Exchange will no longer waive these non-transaction fees to attract market participants to trade SPIKES options. The Exchange also notes that there is no Market Makers trading solely in SPIKES options, thus the Exchange believes that removing the fee waivers for certain non-transaction fees for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) would have no impact on Members or the public. The Exchange believes the proposed removal of the fee waivers is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it applies to all current and future market participants on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed modification and extension of the Incentive Program to January 31, 2025, would continue to increase intra-market competition by incentivizing Market Makers to quote SPIKES options, which will continue to enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts available to trade in SPIKES options. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity for SPIKES options. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume in SPIKES options that results from the anticipated increase in Market Maker activity on the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposal to remove certain of the non-transaction fee waivers for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products would have no impact on intra-market competition because it applies to all new potential Market Makers to quote in Proprietary Products. The Exchange also notes that there are no Market Makers trading solely in SPIKES options, thus the Exchange believes that removing the waiver for the monthly MEI Port fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) would have no impact on intra-market competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes for each separate type of market participant (new Market Makers and existing Market Makers) will be assessed equally to all such market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose
Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed removal of the fee waivers applies only to the Exchange's Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES), which are traded exclusively on the Exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form
(
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee Schedule to: (i) adopt a reduced fee for executions of Retail Orders
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15.6% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange currently charges a standard fee of $0.0030 per share for executions of orders in securities that remove liquidity from the Exchange (such orders, “Removed Volume”). The Exchange now proposes to adopt a reduced fee of $0.0028 per share for executions of Retail Orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that remove liquidity from the Exchange (such orders, “Removed Retail Volume”).
The purpose of reducing the fee for executions of Removed Retail Volume is to incentivize Members to submit additional liquidity-removing Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquidity market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. The Exchange notes that the proposed lower fee for executions of Removed Retail Volume (
The Exchange currently provides a base rebate of $0.0015 per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange (such orders, “Added Displayed Volume”). The Exchange also currently offers Liquidity Provision Tiers 1-6 under which a Member may receive an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume by achieving the corresponding required volume criteria for each such tier. The Exchange now proposes to modify the Liquidity Provision Tiers by eliminating the current Liquidity Provision Tier 1, deleting a footnote associated with the current Liquidity Provision Tier 1 in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, and re-numbering the existing Liquidity Provision Tiers 2-6 as Liquidity Provision Tiers 1-5 (hereinafter referred to as such). The applicable rebates and required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tiers 1-5 would remain unchanged, except for the rebate provided under the renamed Liquidity Provision Tier 1, which the Exchange is proposing to increase, as further described below.
First, with respect to the existing Liquidity Provision Tier 1, the Exchange currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0034 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume in securities priced at or above $1.00 for Members that either: (1) have an ADAV
With respect to the newly re-numbered Liquidity Provision Tier 1,
The tiered pricing structure for executions of Added Displayed Volume under the Liquidity Provision Tiers provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher volume thresholds to receive higher enhanced rebates for such executions and, as such, is intended to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, primarily in the form of liquidity-adding volume, to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all Members and market participants. The Exchange believes that the Liquidity Provision Tiers, as modified by the proposed changes described above, reflect a reasonable and competitive pricing structure that is right-sized and consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added and/or displayed liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, after giving effect to the proposed changes described above, the rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume provided under each of the Liquidity Provision Tiers 1-5 remains commensurate with the corresponding required criteria under each such tier and is reasonably related to the market quality benefits that each such tier is designed to achieve.
The Exchange currently offers NBBO Setter Tier 1 under which a Member may receive an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share for a qualifying Member's executions of Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that establish the NBBO and have a Fee Code B
First, the Exchange proposes to increase the additive rebate under NBBO Setter Tier 1 to $0.0003 per share for a qualifying Member's executions of Added Displayed Volume with a Fee Code of B. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the additive rebate of $0.0001 per share for a qualifying Member's executions with a Fee Code of D or J, and as such, the additive rebate under NBBO Setter Tier 1 as proposed will only apply to a qualifying Member's executions of Added Displayed Volume with a Fee Code of B. The Exchange notes that when the NBBO Setter Tier was originally implemented by the Exchange, the additive rebate similarly only applied to executions with a Fee Code B,
Second, the Exchange is proposing to modify the required criteria under NBBO Setter Tier 1. As noted above, currently, a Member qualifies for such tier by achieving (1) an ADAV with respect to orders with Fee Code B that is equal to or greater than 5,000,000 shares; or (2) an ADAV with respect to orders with Fee Code B that is equal to or greater than 2,000,000 shares and an ADAV in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share (excluding Retail Orders) that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the TCV in securities priced at or above over $1.00 per share. Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the required criteria under NBBO Setter Tier 1 such that a Member would now qualify for such tier by achieving an ADAV with respect to orders with a Fee Code B that is equal to or greater than 0.05% of the TCV. Thus, such proposed change modifies the Fee Code B ADAV criteria in the first alternative from a share-based ADAV to a percentage of the TCV ADAV, and eliminates the second alternative criteria altogether.
The Exchange believes that the proposed modified criteria provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher ADAV in NBBO setting orders (
The Exchange currently offers Tape B Volume Tier 1 under which a Member may receive an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume (excluding Retail Orders) in Tape B Securities (such orders, “Tape B Volume”) by achieving a Tape B ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the Tape B TCV (excluding Retail Orders).
The purpose of modifying the required criteria is for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that such changes would facilitate Members to meet such tier by lowering the Tape B TCV requirement. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would incentivize Members to submit additional order flow in Tape B Securities, thereby promoting price discovery and market quality on the Exchange.
The Exchange currently offers DLI Tiers 1 and 2 under which a Member may receive an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume by achieving the corresponding required criteria for each such tier. The DLI Tiers are designed to encourage Members, through the provision of an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume, to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day (
Currently, under DLI Tier 1, the Exchange provides a rebate of $0.0031 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such tier by achieving: (1) an NBBO Time of at least 25% in an average of at least 1,000 securities per trading day during the month; and (2) an ADAV equal to or greater than 0.10% of the TCV. Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the required criteria under DLI Tier 1 such that a Member would qualify for such tier by achieving: an NBBO time of at least 50% in an average of at least 1,000 securities per trading day during the month.
The purpose of increasing the quoting requirement under DLI Tier 1 is intended to encourage Members to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to encourage market participants to strive for higher volume on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to charge a reduced fee for executions of Removed Retail Volume is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange believes such proposal is reasonable, as it is reasonably designed to incentivize Members to submit additional Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquidity market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable attempt to deepen liquidity on the Exchange, particularly as the Exchange believes the proposed reduction in the fee for executions of Removed Retail Volume (
The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives (such as Liquidity Provision Tiers, NBBO Setter Tiers, the Tape B Volume Tier, and DLI Tiers) have been widely adopted by exchanges (including the Exchange), and are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discount that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. The Exchange believes that Liquidity Provision 1, as modified by the proposed change to the rebate under such tier, NBBO Setter Tier 1, as modified by the proposed removal of the additive rebate as it applies towards executions with Fee Codes D and J and the proposed changes to the required criteria under such tier, Tape B Volume Tier 1, as modified by the proposed changes to the required criteria under such tier, and DLI Tier 1, as modified by the proposed change to the rebate and required criteria under such tier, are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for these same reasons, as such tiers would provide Members with an incremental incentive to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange, are available to all Members on an equal basis, and, as described above, are designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, including in the form of displayed, liquidity-adding, and/or NBBO-setting orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume or Setter Volume, as applicable, thereby contributing to a deeper, more liquid and well balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. The Exchange also believes that such tiers reflect a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees and rebates, as the Exchange believes that the enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume under the proposed modified Liquidity Provision Tier 1, Tape B Volume Tier 1 and DLI Tier 1, and the additive rebate for executions of Setter Volume under the proposed modified NBBO Setter Tier 1, each remain commensurate with the corresponding required criteria under each such tier and is reasonably related to the market quality benefits that each such tier is designed to achieve, as described above.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would maintain a tiered pricing structure that is still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added and/or displayed liquidity and would incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange through volume-based tiers, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes would impose any burden on intramarket competition because such changes will incentivize members to submit additional order flow, thereby contributing to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The opportunity to qualify for the modified Liquidity Provision Tiers, NBBO Setter Tiers, Tape B Volume Tier, and DLI Tiers, and thus receive the corresponding enhanced rebates or discounted fees, as applicable, would be available to all Members that meet the associated volume requirements in any month. As described above, the Exchange believes that the required criteria under each such tier are commensurate with the corresponding rebate under such tier and are reasonably related to the enhanced liquidity and market quality that such tier is designed to promote. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to adopt a reduced fee for executions of Removed Retail Volume would impose any burden on intramarket competition because such changes will apply to all Members uniformly, in that the opportunity to qualify for the discounted fees is available to all Members that submit Retail Orders to the Exchange. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15.6% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates and market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes represent a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange through volume-based tiers, which have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition by enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that offer similar pricing structures and incentives to market participants.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 6.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4829-DR), dated September 29, 2024.
Issued on October 9, 2024.
Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina, dated September 29, 2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4832-DR), dated October 9, 2024.
Issued on October 9, 2024.
Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 9, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 207518 and for economic injury is 207520.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the San Carlos Apache Tribe (FEMA-4833-DR), dated October 4, 2024.
Issued on October 4, 2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 4, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 207305 and for economic injury is 207310.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the San Carlos Apache Tribe (FEMA-4833-DR), dated October 4, 2024.
Issued on October 4, 2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 4, 2024, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 204595 and for economic injury is 204600.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4829-DR), dated October 6, 2024.
Issued on October 6, 2024.
Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 6, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 207348 and for economic injury is 207350.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), a Class I rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) to acquire overhead trackage rights from CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), over an approximately 95-mile CSXT rail line between Falls, Pa., at or near CP River, CSXT milepost QA 2, and Baltimore, Md., including all necessary trackage within CSXT's Bayview Yard, and between the western end of CSXT's Bayview Yard (MP BAL 0.0±) and a connection at MP BAL 0.5± (the Lines).
According to the verified notice, NSR and CSXT have agreed to a Form A Trackage Rights Addendum to their Master Trackage Rights Agreement for the overhead trackage rights.
The transaction may be consummated on or after October 30, 2024, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than October 23, 2024 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36790, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on NSR's representative, William A. Mullins, Mullins Law Group PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
According to NSR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(3) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of public workshop and notice of availability of draft environmental assessment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces the release of the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the proposed airport improvements at the General Mitchell International Airport (MKE). The purpose of the Draft EA is to
The Draft EA is available for public review beginning on September 23, 2024, and a public workshop will be held on October 23, 2024. Additional written comments may be filed with the project consultant, if received by November 6th, 2024, and should be directed to: Westwood Professional Services, ATTN: Airport Environmental, 1N Systems Drive, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914.
Emma Lienau, 2300 Devon Avenue, Suite 312, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. 847-294-7551.
The DEA is available for public review at the following locations during normal business hours:
• Milwaukee Public Library at Tippecanoe Branch at 3912 South Howell Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207;
• Cudahy Family Library at 3500 Library Drive, Cudahy, WI 53110;
• South Milwaukee Public Library at 1907 10th Ave., South Milwaukee, WI 53172; and
• St. Francis Public Library at 4230 S. Nicholson Avenue, St. Francis, WI 53235.
The Draft EA may also be viewed on the following website:
Further information regarding the proposed improvement is available at the WisDOT, Bureau of Aeronautics located at 4822 Madison Yards Way, 5th Floor South, Madison, Wisconsin.
A public workshop will be held to provide the public with information on the Draft EA. The workshop will be held from 5:00 p.m.-6:00p.m. on October 23rd, 2024, at the Sijan Conference Room in the Terminal Building of Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport, 5300 South Howell Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207.
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on September 26, 2024.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of availability and notice of limitations on claims for judicial review of actions by UDOT and other Federal agencies.
The FHWA, on behalf of UDOT, is issuing this notice to announce the availability of the combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the I-15; Farmington to Salt Lake City project, in Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah. In addition, this notice is being issued to announce actions taken by UDOT that are final Federal agency actions related to the project referenced above. Those actions grant licenses, permits and/or approvals for the project. The ROD provides details on the Selected Alternative for the proposed improvements.
This decision became operative on October 3, 2024. By this notice, FHWA, on behalf of UDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Brandon Weston, Director of Environmental Services, UDOT Environmental Services, P.O. Box 148450, Salt Lake City, UT 84114; (801) 965-4603; email:
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this action are being, or have been, carried out by UDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated May 26, 2022, and executed by FHWA and UDOT. Actions taken by UDOT on FHWA's behalf pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 constitute Federal agency actions for purposes of Federal law. Notice is hereby given that UDOT has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
The purpose of the I-15; Farmington to Salt Lake City Project is to improve safety, replace aging infrastructure, provide better mobility for all travel modes, strengthen the state and local economy, and better connect communities along I-15 from Farmington to Salt Lake City. The project purpose consists of the following objectives, which are organized by UDOT's Quality of Life Framework categories of Good Health, Connected Communities, Strong Economy, and Better Mobility. Improve Safety: Improve the safety and operations of the I-15 mainline, I-15 interchanges, bicyclist and pedestrian crossings, and connected roadway network. Better Connect Communities: Be consistent with planned land use, growth objectives, and transportation plans; and Support the planned FrontRunner Double Track projects and enhance access and connectivity to FrontRunner, to regional transit and trails, and across I-15. Strengthen the Economy: Replace aging infrastructure on I-15; and Enhance the economy by reducing travel delay on I-15. Improve Mobility for All Modes: Improve mobility and operations on the I-15 mainline, I-15 interchanges, connected roadway network, transit connections, and bicyclist and pedestrian facilities to help accommodate projected travel demand in 2050.
The primary alternatives carried forward for detailed study in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are the No-action Alternative and the Action Alternative. The Action Alternative includes the following subarea options: Farmington—400 West Option and State Street Option; and Salt Lake City 1000 North—Northern Option and Southern Option. UDOT identified the Action Alternative as its preferred alternative in this Draft EIS. The selected alternative includes the Farmington 400 West Option, and the Salt Lake City 1000 North—Northern Option.
The project is identified in UDOT's adopted 2024-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program as project number 19854 with funding identified for final design and construction. The project is also included in the Wasatch Front Regional Council's (WFRC) 2023-2050 Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan approved in May 2023.
The actions by UDOT, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the EIS and the ROD (Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for I-15; Farmington to Salt Lake City Project, in Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah, Project No. S-I15-7(369)309 approved on October 3, 2024, and other documents in the UDOT project records. The EIS and ROD is available for review at the UDOT Central Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah. In addition, the EIS and ROD documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of safety advisory.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing Safety Advisory 24-1 to alert transit agencies that Phoenix Motorcars (Phoenix) is voluntarily recalling certain 2020-2021 800V Catalyst and 2020-2022 ZX5 transit buses. FTA is recommending corrective actions to avoid and mitigate the risk to public transportation posed by the safety defect. The FTA's Safety Advisory 24-1, “Proterra Bus/Phoenix Motorcars Safety Recall,” is available in its entirety on the agency's public website. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall number is 24V-655.
Philip Herbert, Senior Accident Investigator for Transit Safety and Oversight, telephone (202) 366-5451 or
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for information.
This notice requests information from interested parties to assist the agency in researching property damage only (PDO) crash data collection practices across the United States. State statutes dictate that law enforcement should complete a crash report for PDO crashes meeting a set of criteria including when damage is above a certain dollar threshold that varies by State. When a crash is below the reportable threshold, States may allow civilians to complete a crash report designed specifically for them. In some cases, jurisdictions within States have stopped collecting PDO crashes in an effort to save officer time and/or money. Other jurisdictions have stopped sending sworn officers to respond to PDO crashes. However, the impacts of these changes on crash data collection are not well documented or understood. NHTSA is seeking to identify States and jurisdictions that have modified their PDO crash reporting threshold or are using citizen or non-sworn officers to
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments using the Federal Docket Management System Docket ID NHTSA-2024-0023 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit all comments to the Docket by December 16, 2024.
When you submit your comments, please remember to mention the agency and the docket number of this document within your correspondence. Please note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Please contact Beau Burdett, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA (telephone: 202-366-7338 or email:
From a national perspective, data comparability among States is important to practitioners' understanding of trends and countermeasure effectiveness. However, the United States does not have a single, uniform crash reporting standard. Fatal crashes are reported to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) using a uniform set of data elements and case-inclusion criteria. A common way that States code crash severity is using the KABCO scale. KABCO is an abbreviation for the different levels of injury severity: Killed (fatal injury), A-level (suspected serious) injury, B-level (suspected minor) injury, C-level (possible) injury, or Property Damage Only (no injury). Though not all States use the KABCO scale, all are required to use a uniform definition for both fatalities and serious (A-level) injuries. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Safety Performance Management Measures (23 CFR part 490) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs (23 CFR part 1300) establish a single, national definition for States to report serious (A-level) injuries per the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). MMUCC supplies voluntary standard definitions of other crash severity levels (B- and C-level injuries, and property damage only—PDO).
Crash reporting criteria vary widely among States, especially concerning PDO crashes. Variations include differences in reporting threshold amounts, the use of full or abbreviated reports, the reporter's identity (sworn officers, non-law enforcement investigators, or citizens), and factors other than monetary value, like towaway necessity. The impact of practice variations on crash data quality, particularly PDO reporting, is unclear.
To better understand State PDO data collection practices NHTSA began a research project. To date the research project has compiled State PDO thresholds as outlined in State statutes for the past 15 years, investigated the use of abbreviated reports for PDO crashes, and conducted a literature review on the extent and costs of PDO crashes, crash reporting thresholds, and alternatives to PDO reporting by sworn officers. The next phase of this research effort moves from examining existing literature and State statutes on PDO data collection practices to speaking with select States and agencies regarding their practices and conducting crash data analyses to investigate the impact of different PDO data collection practices on data quality and safety analyses.
This notice requests information from interested parties, including State crash data owners, highway safety offices, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to assist NHTSA in conducting research to investigate different PDO crash data collection practices across the United States and the impacts of these PDO data collection practices (
The agency is interested in information that would help develop and implement the next phase of research into State PDO data collection practices. This includes information about States' PDO thresholds (the research team is examining
(1) How does your State/jurisdiction determine if a crash report came from a sworn law enforcement officer or from a non-sworn officer?
a. Ideally, this would be a data element in the crash report database showing the type of person who generated the report/data. If there are codes for sworn officer, non-sworn officer,
b. Officer badge number could be a second possible way to differentiate crash reports from sworn- versus non-sworn officers. Do you have badge numbers in the crash report/crash database
c. Can you provide information on any training differences for sworn versus non-sworn officers related to their crash reporting processes, knowledge, or duties?
(2) Can your State supply summary statistics of crash data surrounding the most recent change in the crash reporting threshold (
a. We are most concerned with threshold changes in the past 15 years (
b. If the reporting threshold change took place mid-year (rather than on January 1st), we would need to know the implementation date for the change. In that case, we would like to receive the frequency of crashes for the year the change took place
c. If it has been fewer than 5 years since your most recent threshold change, can you provide any available post-change crash frequency data and can we also obtain the crash frequency for 5 years before that change?
d. If there has been more than one change in threshold in the past 15 years, can you please describe the before- and after-change periods for each of the successive threshold changes and tell us if crash frequency data would be available for those periods?
(3) Does your State use citizen/driver report forms for crash reporting?
a. How does your State collect the data from crash-involved persons?
b. How is the data from these reports stored? Specifically, is it added to the statewide crash database and, if so, are those reports tagged in some way to indicate that the data comes from a citizen/driver report?
c. How is the data from citizen/driver reports used? Specifically, is it used in safety analyses and, if so, which types of analyses (
d. If a crash results in
This notice is for information purposes only. The agency will review and consider information provided in response to this notice as it conducts the next phase of research into State PDO data collection practices but will not respond to comments.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning OFAC's information collection requirements contained within OFAC's Rough Diamonds Control Regulations.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments via the following methods:
Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; Assistant Director for Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of charter renewal.
The Charter for the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC), has been renewed for two years beginning September 30, 2024, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Anna Millikan at (202) 317-6564 or send an email to
Notice is hereby given that the charter for the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) has been renewed for two years beginning September 30, 2024, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014.
The purpose of the IRSAC is to provide an organized public forum for discussion of relevant tax administration issues between Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials and representatives of the public.
The IRSAC proposes enhancements to IRS operations; recommends administrative and policy changes to improve taxpayer experience and service, compliance and tax administration; discusses relevant information reporting issues; addresses matters concerning tax-exempt and government entities; conveys the public's perception of professional standards and best practices for tax professionals; and advises on fairness in tax administration.
Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to Internal Revenue Service officials, the IRSAC is comprised of individuals representing a cross-section of the taxpaying public with substantial, disparate experience in tax preparation for individuals, small businesses and/or large, multi-national corporations; information reporting; tax-exempt and government entities; digital services; and professional standards of tax professionals.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning application for special enrollment examination.
Written comments should be received on or before December 16, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at (202) 317-6009, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Appointments to Performance Review Boards (PRBs).
This notice announces the appointment of members to the Department of the Treasury's Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The purpose of these Boards are to review and make recommendations concerning proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions in the Department.
Membership is effective on the date of this notice.
Kimberly Jackson or Kimberly Steide, Office of Executive Resources, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, ATTN: 1801 L Street, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20220. Telephone: 202-622-0774.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by November 15, 2024.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Maribel Aponte, 202-461-8900,
VA intends to collect appropriate information from veterans in order to establish eligibility and intent to utilize VCAP. VA facilities with onsite drop-in child care centers will be able to access the current VA systems to verify veteran name and SSN for eligibility, but must maintain their contact information and the child's information for use in the child care setting for emergency and safety reasons. This information also will be used for auditing and validation purposes in the reimbursement system for those veterans submitting claims for financial reimbursement of child care expenses. Such verification is necessary to pay allowable claims, as well as monitor and prevent fraudulent claims.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
NOAA is designating Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary (CHNMS) in the waters along and offshore of the coast of central California to recognize the national significance of the area's ecological, historical, archaeological, and cultural resources and to manage this special place as part of the National Marine Sanctuary System. The sanctuary boundary encompasses 4,543 square miles (mi
Copies of the final EIS and management plan described in this rule and the Record of Decision (ROD), and additional background materials are available at:
Laura Ingulsrud, West Coast Regional Policy Analyst, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 100F, Monterey, CA 93940, 831-647-6450,
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431
NOAA is designating CHNMS in the waters along and offshore of the coast of central California to recognize the national significance of the area's ecological, historical, archaeological, and cultural resources and to manage this special place as part of the National Marine Sanctuary System. The sanctuary boundary will encompass 4,543 mi
The specific area being designated as a national marine sanctuary includes the coastline of central California from approximately two miles southeast of Diablo Canyon marina, south along the San Luis Obispo County coast and a portion of Santa Barbara County to approximately two miles south of Dos Pueblos Creek near the township of Naples along the Gaviota Coast. Roughly 116 miles of the mainland coast (132 miles if including the shoreline of offshore rocks and islands) are part of the sanctuary designation. The sanctuary's boundaries also include the State waters off the Gaviota coast, the offshore marine waters from the western end of Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS), and northwards, including about half of the Santa Lucia Bank, to approximately 55 miles west of the Santa Maria River mouth, and then east and then north to the point of origin at south of the Diablo Canyon marina. This area out to approximately 60 miles (51 nmi) from shore includes numerous offshore features such as the Santa Lucia Bank, portions of its escarpment, Rodriguez Seamount, Arguello Canyon, and other offshore features and resources. Coastal watersheds drain into this area via multiple outlets, including the Santa Maria and Santa Ynez river mouths and several other coastal streams and rivers. Strong coastal winds drive seasonal upwelling which fuels the area's high biological productivity, supporting dense aggregations of marine life. Specifically, winds offshore of Point Arguello/Point Conception initiate a powerful upwelling process that nourishes other nearby productive ecosystems, such as those located within CINMS. The presence of a biogeographic transition zone around Point Conception, where temperate waters from the north meet waters from the subtropics, creates an area of nationally-significant biodiversity in sea birds, marine mammals, invertebrates, and fishes.
For more than 10,000 years, the productive and diverse ecosystems in the region have been essential to the way of life of Indigenous Peoples in the region, in particular the Chumash, one of the few ocean-going bands among the First Peoples of the Pacific Coast. Tribal connections to the region include traditional and ancestral homelands, customary uses of marine resources for food and cultural connections, and
The marine environment of the sanctuary has provided and continues to provide a special sense of place to its changing coastal communities and visitors because of its historical, archaeological, cultural, aesthetic, and biological resources. The Indigenous peoples along this coast were the first people living in present-day California to have contact with Europeans when Spanish explorers arrived on the Pacific Coast in the mid-1500s. Subsequent waves of Spanish, Mexican, English, Russian, and American explorers and settlers traveled to this region over the next 300 years. The region was shaped by development of a mission system from San Diego to San Francisco, the California gold rush in the mid-1800s, ranching for cattle and the hide/tallow trade, military training and operations, a coastal and offshore oil boom, and, more recently, coastal and offshore renewable energy development. Maritime shipping has been prominent in this portion of California, with treacherous weather and currents leading to over 200 reported ship and aircraft wrecks; at least 20 prominent shipwrecks alone have been found in the area between Point Conception and Point Sal. Two shipwrecks that lie within the sanctuary—the
Coastal tourism, recreational activities, and commercial fishing are prominent components of the coastal and marine economy in this region, particularly in San Luis Obispo County. Coastal and offshore energy and military activities are more prominent in the portion of this region along the Santa Barbara County coastline. Public access to the sanctuary, in particular through State and local parks, is available along the coastline of both counties, as well as from public harbors in Morro Bay, Port San Luis and Santa Barbara. Private land holdings in both counties and a large military base in Santa Barbara County limit access as well as human use and exploitation of natural habitats. Marine research is a small but growing sector of the ocean uses in this area.
The NMSA authorizes the Secretary to designate national marine sanctuaries to meet the purposes and policies of the NMSA, which are available at 16 U.S.C. 1431(b), including:
• To identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment which are of special national significance and to manage these areas as the National Marine Sanctuary System;
• To provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these marine areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities;
• To facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities;
• To develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and management of these areas with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native American Tribes and organizations, international organizations, and other public and private interests concerned with the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas; and,
• To create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage these areas, including the application of innovative management techniques.
The nationally significant natural resources, physical features and habitats, and the cultural and historical resources within the sanctuary warrant long-term protection and management to reduce threats that would adversely affect their historical, cultural, archaeological, ecological, recreational, and educational value. For example, many threatened or endangered species, such as blue whales, snowy plovers, black abalone, white sharks, and leatherback sea turtles, rely on habitats, physical features, or prey found in the sanctuary. This area also contains hundreds of known or suspected shipwrecks of historical importance, including several on the National Register of Historic Places. Moreover, this region and its abundant resources have been home to coastal, ocean-going Indigenous Peoples for tens of thousands of years, and submerged village sites may exist along paleoshorelines in the submerged lands of the sanctuary. Various levels of human development and activity can cause harm to these natural, cultural and historical resources from: new offshore energy development; decommissioning and removal of coastal and offshore industrial facilities; sound, discharges and whale strikes from vessel traffic; plastics, marine debris and pollutants from coastal runoff; and most of all, acute and cumulative impacts of climate change.
Accordingly, NOAA is designating this area as a national marine sanctuary to: (1) manage and protect nationally-significant natural resources, physical features and habitats, and cultural and historical resources through a regulatory and nonregulatory framework; (2) document, characterize, monitor, study, and conserve these resources; (3) provide interpretation of their natural, cultural, historical, and educational value to the public; (4) promote public stewardship and responsible use of these resources for various purposes to the extent compatible with the sanctuary's principal goal of resource protection; (5) develop a coordinated, community-based, ecosystem-based management regime with partner Federal agencies, State and local governments, the federally recognized Tribe, and other Indigenous organizations; and (6) develop and carry out an innovative collaborative management structure to involve Indigenous communities, including federally recognized Tribes, other Indigenous groups and organizations, and individuals and communities with knowledge of Indigenous culture, history, and environment, in important management programs and initiatives of the sanctuary.
Designating a new national marine sanctuary along the coast of central California allows NOAA to complement and supplement existing Federal and State resource management programs, policies, and regulations. For instance, discharge regulations to establish more comprehensive water quality protection across the geographic range for sanctuary protection under NMSA will bolster existing authorities under the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251
In July 2015, a broad community consortium led by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council submitted a nomination through the Sanctuary Nomination Process. The nomination identified opportunities for NOAA to expand upon existing local and State efforts to study, interpret, and manage the area's unique cultural and biological resources. The nomination also highlighted the maritime history and cultural heritage of Chumash Peoples, who, along with other Indigenous communities, have deep cultural connections to this area of central California. NOAA completed its review of the nomination and, on October 5, 2015, added the area to the inventory of successful nominations eligible for designation. All nominations submitted to NOAA can be found at:
On November 10, 2021, NOAA began the sanctuary designation process for the proposed CHNMS by publishing a notice of intent (86 FR 62512) to prepare a draft EIS as well as other pertinent designation materials such as a draft management plan, terms of designation, and a proposed rule, as required by NMSA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Following the notice of intent, NOAA conducted three virtual public meetings, hearing oral comments from 100 participants, and received thousands of written comments during an 83-day public comment period. The majority of comments supported the goals of sanctuary designation, including protecting the cultural heritage of Chumash Tribal communities and protecting the coastal California ecosystem's health and resilience. Many commenters also noted the importance of managing the area to promote recreation and tourism to support the local economy, to foster education and research programs, and to establish a shared management approach with Indigenous communities. Commenters also voiced concerns about overlapping existing and potential uses of the area such as fishing and offshore energy development. Overall, comments covered a diversity of other topics including views on: the proposed boundary and name for the proposed sanctuary; alternatives to consider for the boundary and name for the proposed sanctuary; activities that should be regulated; what non-regulatory programs the proposed sanctuary should have; and different ways to structure collaborative or co-management with Native American Tribes. More detail about the scoping comments is contained in the final EIS, section 3.11 and Appendix B.
After the close of the public scoping process, NOAA engaged in an 18-month process to evaluate the comments received; to determine which activities might require regulations, which should best be addressed through non-regulatory actions of the management plan, and which warranted no action; and to assess the potential environmental impacts of sanctuary designation on the natural and human environment. NOAA held public meetings and workshops to gain information on certain areas, such as research and monitoring, wildlife disturbance, recreation and tourism, education, and water quality. NOAA held formal government-to-government consultation meetings with the one federally recognized Tribe in the region, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI), and also held engagement meetings with other non-federally recognized Tribes and Indigenous organizations in the region. Three documents were released for public comment on August 25, 2023—a draft management plan,
In total, NOAA received 2,292 separate oral and written public comment submissions, that totaled more than 110,500 comments including campaign letters and petition signatures. NOAA reviewed all comments, organizing them into nearly 500 separate, substantive issues that each received a written response (see Appendix A of the final EIS, Response to Comments and section V of this final rule). The comments and NOAA's responses to those comments have guided development of the final terms of designation and regulations as outlined in this final rule, the final management plan, and the final EIS. Each of those documents are outlined in sections below, including a discussion of the Final Preferred Alternative.
Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the terms of designation
The purpose and need for the sanctuary provide the overarching basis for developing the regulations. NOAA developed this rulemaking and the sanctuary terms of designation based on information received during public scoping comments, cooperating agency review, and government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations under Executive Order 13175, as well as feedback from interagency coordination, comments received through the public comment process on the draft designation materials, from analysis of issues and potential impacts as explained in the final EIS, and internal staff analysis and expertise.
Comments from the scoping and the public review processes from Tribal representatives, representatives of other Indigenous groups, governmental agencies, users such as the fishing industry and offshore wind energy, telecommunications and oil and gas industries, other interested organizations, and the public addressed the need for regulations and exemptions for certain activities. NOAA consulted with the Pacific Fishery Management Council as required under NMSA section 304(a)(5). NOAA also considered existing regulations for other west coast national marine sanctuaries, including Monterey Bay, Greater Farallones, Channel Islands, and Olympic Coast national marine sanctuaries, and developed terms of designation and a set of regulations that are generally consistent with other sanctuary provisions in similar resource areas. In developing the regulations, NOAA evaluated resource sensitivity, industry practices, and feasibility of implementing certain regulations, to balance resource protection regulations with existing and future compatible activities that may occur in the sanctuary.
Following publication of the proposed rule, in consideration of public comments and further review, NOAA made changes to the terms of designation and the regulations which are described in detail in section III of this final rule. NOAA provides a detailed discussion of the final regulations in section IV, subsection A through I, of this rule. The text of the final regulations are presented at the end of this rule.
When designating a national marine sanctuary, NOAA also develops and presents a management plan that describes the management activities and initiatives that it proposes to conduct. The final management plan for the designation of CHNMS describes actions that NOAA will take to manage the sanctuary, summarized in 12 action plans, such as research and monitoring, education and outreach, sanctuary resource protection, and sanctuary operations, as well as practical programs to address certain issue areas, such as climate change, offshore energy, water quality, and wildlife disturbance. NOAA has developed the final management plan for the Final Preferred Alternative it is designating.
In addition to engaging in government-to-government consultation with the federally recognized SYBCI, as described in section VI Classification below, NOAA has conducted meetings with non-federally recognized Tribes and Indigenous organizations along the central California coast, including the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash Tribe, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, Xolon Salinan Tribe, Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation, and Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians. After the draft designation materials were released, NOAA also met with many of these same organizations as part of consultations conducted under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, in which some of these organizations participated as additional consulting parties. Close, deliberate collaboration between NOAA and these Indigenous organizations has been an essential element of this sanctuary designation process. NOAA has incorporated input from federally recognized Indian Tribes and all interested Indigenous community entities throughout the sanctuary designation process, as well as toward sanctuary management after designation. The final management plan includes an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Action Plan that describes how sanctuary management would involve Tribal and Indigenous perspectives and collaboration in a number of specific sanctuary management actions.
Additionally, NOAA is including in the final management plan a framework for collaborative co-stewardship of the new sanctuary with federally recognized Native American Tribes and non-federally recognized Indigenous groups. A detailed explanation of that framework and an outline of opportunities for Tribal and Indigenous community collaboration in management of the sanctuary are found in the introduction to the final management plan. In summary, the framework, revised based on the public comments, has built upon extensive input from representatives from the SYBCI and non-federally recognized Indigenous organizations in this coastal area. NOAA envisions relying on government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Tribes; an Intergovernmental Policy Council involving federally recognized Tribes and the State of California; and a Sanctuary Advisory Council (to be established after designation) that has one or more voting seats for federally recognized Tribes and one or more voting seats to represent the knowledge, history, and culture of Indigenous communities more broadly. NOAA also intends to work with the Sanctuary Advisory Council, after sanctuary designation, on the establishment of an Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel as a working group of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. The Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel will provide advice to the Sanctuary Advisory Council, with coordination and communication with other groups as appropriate, about cultural issues important to these coastal Tribes and Indigenous groups. NOAA also envisions a role for one or more non-profit foundations to support joint projects between NOAA and federally recognized Tribes and/or non-federally recognized Indigenous groups.
The following substantive changes were made to the draft management plan, as reflected in the final management plan and described in more detail in EIS Section 3.2.3:
• The Framework for Indigenous Collaborative Co-Stewardship in the Introduction was revised to clarify collaborative management roles and responsibilities;
• Nearly all action plans were enhanced with new or clarified activities, or potential partners, based on public comments; and
• A Boundary Adjustment Action Plan was added that calls for a process to consider, analyze, and support future decision-making on possible expansion of the boundary of the sanctuary, or expansion of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), or designation of a new sanctuary, to
In accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
The final EIS analyzed the Initial Boundary Alternative (7,573 mi
• Alternative 1, Bank to Coast, which focused management from the Santa Lucia Bank to the coast (6,098 mi
• Alternative 2, Cropped Bank to Coast (5,553 mi
• Alternative 3, Diablo to Gaviota Creek, excluded more (relative to Alternative 2) northern waters that BOEM had identified for potential offshore wind development by removing the Diablo Canyon Call Area from the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary, and focused management on the area from the Diablo Canyon Call Area and nuclear power plant south to Gaviota Creek (5,804 mi
• Alternative 4, Combined Smallest, excluded both the western and northern offshore areas focusing management on the smallest area (4,328 mi
The final EIS also analyzed two small expansion areas:
• Sub-Alternative 5a, Morro Bay Estuary (2.5 mi
• Sub-Alternative 5b, Gaviota Coast Extension (64 mi
The final EIS also included a “No Action Alternative” in which NOAA would not designate the area as a national marine sanctuary. NOAA also identified a Final Preferred Alternative in the final EIS (see Section 5.4.9 in the final EIS and subsection 6 below). NOAA indicated in the proposed rule and the draft EIS (
The final EIS evaluated and considered the potential impacts of implementing the final regulations and conducting the various management programs and initiatives described in the final management plan.
The final EIS focused on eight issue areas: physical resources; biological resources; commercial fishing and aquaculture; cultural heritage and maritime heritage resources; socioeconomics, human uses, and environmental justice; offshore energy; marine transportation; and homeland security and Department of Defense (DoD) activities.
NOAA has provided a section in the final EIS (see Section 1.5) to outline the substantive changes it made between the draft and the final EIS. A brief summary of some of those changes include:
• Changing the preferred alternative;
• Minor changes to the boundary for Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 south of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to ensure the intent behind those alternatives can be met;
• Excluding the small harbor area at Vandenberg Space Force Base;
• Clarifying regulations to reflect that oil and gas leaseholders are excepted from certain regulations, regardless of whether they are producing oil and gas at the time of sanctuary designation, to align with the scope of oil and gas rights under existing leases or lease units;
• Changes to streamline and clarify the certification process;
• Pulling together into one section in Chapter 4.6 the information about submarine fiber optic cables that had been distributed throughout the draft EIS; and
• Changes to various appendices to the EIS, including the addition of Appendix A, Response to Comments.
In accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
NOAA has evaluated the adverse and beneficial impacts from the Initial Boundary Alternative, as well as the various alternatives that considered smaller and larger boundaries. This evaluation has included careful review of over 110,000 comments submitted on the draft designation materials (see final EIS Appendix A, Response to Comments). The Final Preferred Alternative provides significant beneficial impacts on cultural heritage and maritime heritage resources through inclusion of Sub-Alternative 5b along the Gaviota Coast. It provides other beneficial but less-than-significant impacts in nearly all resource areas, such as: physical resources; biological resources; commercial fishing and aquaculture; cultural heritage and maritime heritage resources; socioeconomics, human uses, and environmental justice; and DoD and homeland security activities, largely through sanctuary regulations that would limit the scale and scope of offshore development activities and other human uses that could harm natural, historical, and cultural resources. NOAA has considered the adverse impacts of the Final Preferred Alternative and finds them to be an acceptable balance between resource use and conservation of sanctuary resources. This alternative has no significant adverse impacts and the least amount of adverse but less-than-significant impacts on development of offshore renewable energy, and telecommunications and submarine fiber optic cables, as well as on marine transportation (compared to the Initial Boundary Alternative and all other action alternatives).
NOAA has reconsidered offshore wind industry concerns regarding the sanctuary in the particular context of the Morro Bay leases, in conjunction with existing infrastructure and competing uses of the proposed sanctuary area (see Figure 5-2 in the final EIS), and in light of the purposes and policies of the NMSA and Administration priorities. Adopting the Final Preferred Alternative allows offshore wind developers to complete siting and permitting for subsea electrical transmission cables from the three Morro Bay offshore wind leases to landing sites at both Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon without having to route cables through the new sanctuary. The Final Preferred Alternative is the most manageable boundary at this time and will allow NOAA to focus on numerous core activities outlined in the management plan without the need to focus resources on myriad permitting issues related to offshore wind development. This avoids any perception of risk that a sanctuary permit review of proposed cables could delay or otherwise interfere with development of these renewable energy projects. Additionally, accommodating cable routes to landing sites at both Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon would allow space for the cable routes to make siting adjustments (“micro siting”) to avoid sensitive resources or certain seafloor features or hazards. See also the discussion in subsection B to this section of the final rule and response to Comment BO-1 in Appendix A for additional explanation of NOAA's identification of the Final Preferred Alternative.
As explained further in subsection III.F of the final rule, NOAA anticipates initiating a process, “Phase 2,” to consider establishing additional sanctuary protection 5-7 years after designation consistent with NOAA's timeline for the first management plan review process, which is also a reasonable period of time for developers to obtain permits and easements from other agencies for subsea electrical transmission cables. This Phase 2 process would commence no later than January 2032 and would inform NOAA's consideration of future options for sanctuary protection of this area (see also the Boundary Adjustment Action Plan in the final management plan). Any future sanctuary designation or expansion could then recognize any existing cables or other permitted structures as existing structures via a sanctuary certification process.
Including the Gaviota Coast extension within the Final Preferred Alternative would provide additional protection of important coastal resources. It would include waters off three popular State beaches and parks—Gaviota, Refugio, and El Capitán—and would ensure that Kashtayit and Naples State Marine Conservation Areas are entirely within the sanctuary. It would include beaches, kelp forests, and rocky and soft substrate reefs. As discussed in Section 4.5 of the final EIS, that portion of the Gaviota Coast was home to numerous, large Chumash villages at the time of European first contact. Ensuring conservation of these resources is an important benefit to including this sub-alternative in the Final Preferred Alternative. The continued presence and use of offshore structures and development in this area, such as pipelines and cables related to the Santa Ynez Unit oil and gas development, could be accommodated via the certification process included in the regulations. Repair, replacement, or removal of the structures necessary for existing oil and gas production could be considered via an ONMS authorization process.
In identifying the Final Preferred Alternative, NOAA considered which boundary alternative would be most manageable while simultaneously maximizing the principal purposes for the proposed sanctuary. The Final Agency-Preferred Alternative includes numerous coastal, nearshore, and offshore living resources and habitats of national significance, including a large portion of the Santa Lucia Bank, most of Arguello Canyon and all of the Rodriguez Seamount. The Final Preferred Alternative allows NOAA to focus its management on some of the key areas historically important to the SYBCI and other Chumash bands and natural resources important to their heritage.
The draft EIS and the proposed rule provided notice to the public that, based on public comments received on the draft designation materials and NOAA's experience administering the national marine sanctuary program, pursuant to NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act, NOAA may choose to identify an alternative in the final rule and final EIS that is within the geographic and regulatory scope of the alternatives considered in the draft EIS and that is
Section 304(a)(4) of NMSA as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(4), requires that the terms of designation be described at the time a new sanctuary is designated, including the geographic area to be included within the sanctuary, the characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic value, and the types of activities that will be subject to regulation to protect those characteristics.
The following represents the terms of designation:
Under the authority of the NMSA, approximately 4,500 mi
The NMSA authorizes the issuance of such regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement the designation, including managing and protecting the ecological, cultural, and historical resources and the conservation, recreational, scientific, educational, and aesthetic qualities of Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary (the “Sanctuary”). Section 1 of article IV of these terms of designation lists those activities that may have to be regulated on the effective date of designation, or at some later date, in order to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Listing an activity does not necessarily mean that it will be regulated. However, if an activity is not listed it may not be regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless section 1 of article IV is amended by the same procedures by which the original Sanctuary designation was made.
Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary covers approximately 4,500 mi
For well over 10,000 years, First Peoples along North America have resided on the coast and in inland valleys adjacent to central California. Caves and other village sites at the nearby Channel Islands indicate occupation in this region as much as 13,000 years before present. At that time, due to glaciation at northern latitudes, the sea level was as much as 10 miles offshore from the present coastline. Paleoshorelines may exist in this area that could provide further evidence of early human occupation. The Native Americans who live in this coastal area today, the Chumash and Salinan, can trace generations of family lineages in this region, that, when coupled with other historical accounts and archaeological data, show this coast and ocean area have supported their people, cultures, and heritage for thousands of years.
The special characteristics of the coast east of Point Conception, consisting of a south-facing coast with a channel sheltered by offshore islands, allowed Chumash to develop and make use of the plank canoe, called a “tomol,” for fishing and trade with other Chumash groups. Chumash villages north of Point Conception could not as easily make use of the plank canoe in the rougher waters, but relied on the abundance of shellfish in this area and reed canoes, also used by Salinans. Between the Santa Maria River through the Gaviota Coast, 14 Chumash villages existed at the time of contact with Europeans, nearly 500 years ago. The largest Chumash village on the California coast at that time was “Mikiw,” located on the west bluff of Dos Pueblos Canyon. Numerous sites exist further north along the Sanctuary's coast, many on private lands and undisclosed. Most of the inhabited sites were located at the mouths of rivers or along the seashore where there was an abundance of food. The range of sites documented along or near the Sanctuary's coast includes rock art, shrines, village sites, camp sites, cemeteries, organic remains, evidence of trade systems, and evidence of various forms of subsistence, including hunting, fishing, and extraction.
Serial use and development along this coastline, beginning with Indigenous Peoples, then Spanish exploration and occupation, Russian fur trading, ranching and the trade for hides and tallow, discovery of gold, commercial fishing, and onshore and offshore oil and gas development have all had a hand in shaping this region's coast and human use of resources. All of these uses have been dependent on marine transportation, and as a result over 200 ship and aircraft wrecks are recorded in this area, including several of national significance such as the
The natural resources of the ocean have been a principal element of most of the human occupation and exploitation of the region. Strong and persistent coastal winds drive upwelling, an oceanographic process critical to the highly productive marine ecosystem. Large kelp forests, vast sandy beaches, rocky shorelines, shallow and deep reefs, and coastal wetlands are interconnected, co-dependent biological communities
The nationally significant ecological transition zone in the area around Point Conception—Point Arguello, where species more common in sub-tropical waters to the south meet with species more common in colder temperate waters to the north, is a central feature of the Sanctuary. The northern range of many warmer water species and the southern range of many colder water species meet in the area between Point Conception and Point Arguello. Increasing ocean temperatures and other impacts from climate change intensify the need to study biogeographic shifts in this area and affirm the importance of protecting the habitats on which these species depend.
Rodriguez Seamount, 45 mi southwest of Point Conception, formed 10-12 million years ago through volcanic activity. It rises more than a mile above the seafloor to a relatively shallow depth of around 2,000 ft. below sea level. Scientists consider it to be relatively rare in that it may once have been an island, rising to possibly 200 ft. above sea level; due to sea level rise and seafloor subsidence, the seamount is now fully submerged. From its time as an island, it has remnants of sandy beach features and from its time as a seamount, it has large coral and sponge colonies. Preliminary studies indicate a high percentage of invertebrate species as well as fish species found on Rodriguez Seamount that are not found on other nearby seamounts. Some surveys have uncovered substantial aggregations of coral colonies, with large individuals likely decades old, indicating a low level of disturbance to date. A special management zone for Rodriguez Seamount has been designated by Sanctuary regulations to allow for special protection in the water column 500 ft. above the seamount and to complement regulations adopted separately under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to protect benthic habitats.
The area contains dramatic coastlines consisting of rocky shorelines, large bluffs, and sweeping sandy beaches. Other than an approximately 10-mile stretch of urban development along the coast from Port San Luis through Oceano, most of the 116 miles of Sanctuary coastline is undeveloped due to State and county park ownership, a large stretch owned by the U.S. Government as a military installation, and private landholdings of large and small ranches or dispersed single-family dwellings. This lack of development creates a sense of wildness and highly-valued aesthetics of a natural coastal setting worthy of national marine sanctuary designation.
The following activities are subject to regulation, including prohibition, as may be necessary to ensure the protection and effective management of the ecological, cultural, historical, conservation, recreational, scientific, educational, or aesthetic resources or qualities of the area:
a. Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas, or minerals (
b. Discharging or depositing, from within or into the boundary of the Sanctuary, or from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;
c. Taking, removing, moving, catching, collecting, harvesting, feeding, injuring, destroying, attracting, possessing, or causing the loss of, or attempting to take, remove, move, catch, collect, harvest, feed, injure, destroy, attract, or cause the loss of, a marine mammal, sea turtle, bird, historical resource, or other Sanctuary resource;
d. Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the submerged lands of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter on or in the submerged lands of the Sanctuary;
e. Flying a motorized aircraft above the Sanctuary;
f. Operating a vessel (
g. Aquaculture or kelp harvesting within the Sanctuary;
h. Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into the Sanctuary an introduced species; and,
i. Interfering with, obstructing, delaying, or preventing an investigation, search, seizure, or disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the NMSA or any regulation or permit issued under the NMSA.
Listing an activity here means the Secretary of Commerce can regulate the activity, after complying with all applicable regulatory laws, without going through the designation procedures required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b). No term of designation issued under the authority of the NMSA may take effect in California State waters within the Sanctuary if the Governor of California certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that such term of designation is unacceptable within the review period specified in the NMSA.
Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or to minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and all activities, including those not listed in section 1, are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition.
Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the NMSA, no valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or access, may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce or designee as a result of this designation or as a result of any Sanctuary regulation if such authorization or right was in existence on the effective date of this designation.
In no event may the Secretary or designee issue a permit authorizing, or otherwise approve: (1) The exploration for, development of, or production of oil, gas, or minerals within the Sanctuary; (2) the discharge of primary-treated sewage except for regulation, pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, of the exercise of valid authorizations in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by other authorities of competent jurisdiction; or (3) the disposal of dredged material within the Sanctuary other than at sites authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to the effective date of designation. The disposal of dredged material does not include the beneficial use of dredged material. Any purported authorizations issued by other authorities after the effective date of Sanctuary designation for any of these activities within the Sanctuary shall be invalid.
Article IV does not authorize the direct regulation of lawful fishing activities (commercial and recreational) within the Sanctuary, such as setting catch quotas, establishing spatial closures for fishing, or setting fishing seasons. However, all activities listed in article IV could apply to a person engaged in the act of fishing, such as, but not limited to, vessel operations, wildlife disturbance, discharges, introduction of an introduced species, or disturbance of cultural or historical resources. Aquaculture and kelp harvesting, by contrast, are subject to direct regulation under these terms of designation. Fishing in the Sanctuary may be regulated by other Federal or State authorities of competent jurisdiction, and designation of the Sanctuary shall have no effect on any fishery management regulation, permit, or license issued thereunder.
The terms of designation, as defined under section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA, may be modified only by the same procedures by which the original designation is made, including public hearings, consultations with interested Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities and agencies, review by the appropriate congressional committees, and approval by the Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee.
Based on public comments received between August 25 and October 25, 2023, NOAA's responses to those comments, internal deliberations, interagency consultations, and Tribal consultation, NOAA has made the following changes to the proposed rule and, where appropriate, corresponding changes to the final EIS and management plan.
NOAA has revised its Agency-Preferred Alternative from the draft EIS and now identifies its Final Preferred Alternative as Alternative 4, plus Sub-Alternative 5b, plus a small area analyzed as part of the Initial Boundary Alternative in the center of the Santa Lucia Bank, thereby creating a straight line across the northern section of the new sanctuary (see Figure 5-1a in the final EIS). The reasons for selecting this as the Final Preferred Alternative are discussed in detail in Section I, subsection C.6 of this final rule, Section 5.4.9 in the final EIS, and in various responses to comments, in particular response to Comment BO-1 (see Appendix A of the final EIS).
An original primary purpose of Alternative 3 (and Alternative 4, which is a composite smallest boundary that omits the ocean areas excluded from either Alternative 1 or 3) was to exclude areas from the sanctuary identified or potentially necessary for offshore wind development, specifically an additional potential wind energy area (WEA) in Federal waters and corridors to allow subsea electrical transmission cables to connect to both Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon grid connections without passing through the sanctuary. Following public comment on the draft designation materials, pursuant to NEPA, minor alterations were made to the nearshore boundary of Alternative 3 (and Alternative 4) to ensure the intent of this alternative could be met. Concerns that drove this change include consideration of the following clarifying information received in public comments: the need for access to the Diablo Canyon grid connections and necessary landing site sufficient to allow for gentle turns (rather than sharp angles) for cables; the ability to cross existing submarine fiber optic cables at roughly right angles; regulatory challenges routing cables through the special marine protected areas in State waters; space to make minor siting adjustments (“micro siting”) to cable routes to avoid sensitive resources or certain seafloor features or hazards; and space to achieve the offshore wind industry's intent for the distance between cables to be at least three times the water depth, in line with recommendations of the International Cable Protection Committee. The resulting changes to the boundary include shifting the boundary that first intercepts the coast in the north one mile to the southeast so that it originates now about two miles southeast of the Diablo Canyon marina breakwater. The boundary also is shifted due south from this coastal point and then due west to create more space in which cables could be planned and permitted without needing to pass through the sanctuary. This same shift was made for Alternative 4. In both alternatives, these shifts reduce the potential size of the sanctuary by 148 square miles, and reduce the total distance along the coast by one mile. These changes are consistent with the intent of these Alternatives and with the purposes and goals of the draft designation materials. See maps in Chapter 3 of the final EIS, and see sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the final EIS for more information on why these boundary adjustments constitute minor variations qualitatively within the geographic and regulatory scope of alternatives assessed in the draft EIS.
NOAA also intended to exclude from the sanctuary the waters of all harbors, which typically host and require activities that can be inconsistent with sanctuary regulations. Morro Bay, the private marina at Diablo Cove and Port San Luis were all excluded in boundary alternatives. NOAA inadvertently failed to exclude the military harbor area at Vandenberg Space Force Base from sanctuary alternatives. The exclusion area would be roughly 0.1 square miles, and would be defined by the breakwater at the harbor area, and a line 0.1 mile due east, and then turning due north until it intercepts the MHWL at the coast. NOAA is excluding this small area from the final sanctuary boundary. This is a technical correction that is consistent with the purposes and goals of the draft designation materials. See maps in Chapter 3 of the final EIS, and see Section 3.2.1 of the final EIS, footnote 3, for more information.
NOAA made changes to the final terms of designation based on public comment and responses to those
NOAA's intent with designation of this sanctuary has been to allow existing oil and gas production to continue after sanctuary designation. Based on public comments and interagency discussion, NOAA is clarifying the exception to the prohibition on oil, gas and mineral exploration, development, and production (922.232(a)(1)) to reflect that leaseholders can continue to develop oil and gas resources as allowed under existing leases and lease units. The language in the proposed rule had limited this exception to production from reservoirs under production from Platforms Irene and Heritage at the time of sanctuary designation. The revised language will now read: “(1) Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas, or minerals within the Sanctuary, except for oil and gas production, which includes well abandonment, pursuant to leases or lease units in effect upon the effective date of Sanctuary designation”. This change ensures that any reservoir that was temporarily shut in at the time of designation, or any reservoir not yet developed but within a lease or lease unit in effect on the date of Sanctuary designation could still be developed pursuant to such lease or lease unit and meet this exception to the regulatory prohibition on oil, gas or mineral development in the sanctuary.
NOAA has also made a technical clarifying revision to 15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(iii) to more accurately describe the nature of exceptions to this regulation. This change is a minor conforming amendment consistent with the intent, purposes, and policies of the proposed rule.
Because the prohibition on discharges within or into the sanctuary (922.232(a)(2)(i)) has similar language to allow through regulatory exception discharges into reservoirs that are incidental and necessary to oil and gas production, NOAA revised the exception to this discharge prohibition to now read: “H. Discharges incidental and necessary to oil and gas production within or into reservoirs contained within existing leases or lease units in effect on the effective date of Sanctuary designation from Platform Irene or Platform Heritage, including well abandonment”. 15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(i)(H). This clarification ensures sanctuary designation will not require oil and gas developers to seek sanctuary approval for discharges into reservoirs incidental and necessary to oil and gas development allowed under existing leases or lease units. Discharges from platforms or pipelines into the sanctuary are not covered by this exception and would require sanctuary review and approval; existing, permitted discharges at the time of sanctuary designation can be certified as an existing activity.
The prohibition on disturbance of the submerged lands of the sanctuary (922.232(a)(3)) also has an exception to describe existing oil and gas development. Consistent with other exceptions, NOAA revised the exception to allow for drilling, maintaining, or abandoning a well necessary for purposes related to oil and gas production pursuant to existing leases or lease units in effect on the effective date of Sanctuary designation from Platform Irene or Platform Heritage. 15 CFR 922.232(a)(3)(vi). These changes reflect technical corrections and clarifications, based on discussions with the expert agency (Department of the Interior) that are consistent with the proposed rule and that reflect the intended scope of the proposed rule.
In response to public comment and to implement technical and procedural corrections and clarifications consistent with the purposes of the proposed rule, NOAA made changes to the Certification Process (922.234) to allow existing, permitted activities in effect at the time the sanctuary is designated. These changes include clarifying that applicants/permit holders have 120 days after the effective date of sanctuary designation to notify NOAA regarding any Federal-, State- or locally-issued lease, permit, license, approval, other authorization or right of subsistence use or access. NOAA also clarified that when considering imposing any conditions on a certification, the ONMS Director may seek and consider the views of other persons or entities, but will not hold a public hearing. NOAA added a clause to clarify that the ONMS Director can amend, suspend or revoke the certification when the underlying permit is amended, suspended or revoked, but NOAA also removed language that allowed an already-issued certification to be reopened at any time. While these revisions constitute changes from certification procedures at some other sanctuary sites, they have been made in response to site-specific needs and concerns, including the anticipated number of certification requests. NOAA will coordinate with the Federal, State or local agency that issued an underlying permit should concerns arise in the future about an existing activity.
Based on interagency coordination, NOAA is including a section of the regulations describing two memorandums of agreement NOAA will enter into for interagency coordination to address regulatory or statutory issues—introduced species aquaculture projects and the Sunken Military Craft Act. See Section IV, subsection H of this final rule for a description of these memoranda of agreement. This addition is a clarification of intended agency procedures on coordination and constitutes a minor technical and procedural update that is consistent with the purposes and policies of the proposed rule.
The draft designation materials indicated that the name for the sanctuary was not yet final and would depend on the final boundary selected, among other factors. NOAA's assessment has shown it is reasonably and historically accurate to consider the final boundary identified for this sanctuary, extending from just south of Diablo Canyon in the north through most of the Gaviota Coast, as lying along the coastline that has historically been considered the ancestral lands of Chumash Peoples. Given the extensive public comment in support of the name “Chumash Heritage,” and given that this boundary is least likely to overlap with ancestral lands and waters of Salinan Peoples, NOAA is designating this sanctuary with the name “Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.”
NOAA is adding this section to the final rule to express the importance of and its commitment to “Phase 2,” to evaluate and consider establishing additional sanctuary protection 5-7 years after designation consistent with NOAA's timeline for the first sanctuary management plan review process. As noted elsewhere, the selection of the Final Preferred Alternative, while providing significant beneficial impacts for marine conservation, is the boundary least likely to create potential regulatory uncertainty perceived by offshore wind developers because they are not expected to require sanctuary permits for subsea electrical transmission cables to shore. NOAA anticipates initiating the review process to consider expanding sanctuary protections 5 to 7 years after designation consistent with NOAA's timeline for the first management plan review process. This timeframe would provide a reasonable amount of time for offshore wind developers to obtain permits and easements from other agencies to develop their subsea electrical transmission cables, and possibly install some of those cables. NOAA has included a Boundary Adjustment Action Plan in the final management plan that envisions commencing, in January 2032, formal consideration of expanding sanctuary conservation for resources north of the current boundary up to the MBNMS boundary, west of the current boundary to include areas within the Initial Boundary Alternative, and into Morro Bay Estuary. Sanctuary conservation in the future, if warranted, could involve expanding CHNMS boundaries, shifting the boundaries for MBNMS, or designating a new sanctuary, or some combination of these. A future designation or expansion would require a separate public process under the NMSA and NEPA.
NOAA acknowledges that some important studies may need to begin soon after CHNMS designation to help collect information on the nationally-significant resources in these areas, the potential threats to those resources, and the appropriateness of a national marine sanctuary to address those threats. As resources are available, NOAA will begin those studies and characterizations.
This approach allows NOAA to work more closely with the Salinan and northern Chumash Tribes and Indigenous communities, and other interested parties, on various conservation options for the resources in this region. NOAA considers these steps and other potential actions to be part of “Phase 2 Sanctuary Conservation” for this region.
NOAA is amending 15 CFR part 922 by adding a new subpart (subpart V) that contains site-specific regulations for the sanctuary. This subpart includes the boundary, contains definitions of common terms used in the new subpart, identifies prohibited activities and exceptions, and establishes procedures for certification of existing uses and permitting otherwise prohibited activities.
NOAA's designation of Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary consists of an area of approximately 4,500 square miles (mi
This rule incorporates and adopts common terms defined in the national regulations at 15 CFR 922.11. In addition, NOAA is including two site-specific definitions.
NOAA is defining “beneficial use of dredged material”
NOAA is defining the “Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone” to define the special marine area immediately on top of, around, and adjacent to the Rodriguez Seamount. This definition is necessary because NOAA is including a regulation that specifically prohibits the collection, or other injury, of any sanctuary resource below 1,500 ft. water depth in this area from any activity other than from lawful fishing. This corresponds to the water depth about 500 ft. above the very top of the seamount. Existing fishing regulations, separately established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), already restrict bottom trawling in much of the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone. This special area,
NOAA is supplementing and complementing existing management of this area by adopting the following regulations in § 922.232 to protect sanctuary resources and qualities.
The central California coast has hosted oil and gas development for over 100 years and the area being designated as a national marine sanctuary has hosted oil and gas development for nearly 40 years. There have been oil spills from platforms and pipelines in this area, and spills from onshore development and onshore pipeline transportation, all of which have caused significant environmental harm. Additional information about these spill incidents is contained in section 4.7 of the final EIS. NOAA is prohibiting exploration, development, and production of offshore oil and gas resources within the sanctuary to reduce the risk of offshore spills from oil and gas development in the area. Oil and gas production pursuant to existing leases and lease units in effect on the effective date of sanctuary designation, specifically from Platform Irene (as part of the Point Pedernales Unit development) and Platform Heritage (as part of the Santa Ynez Unit development), including well abandonment, and including transportation in pipelines of product to shore, would be allowed to continue after sanctuary designation until those leases and lease units are terminated.
Constructing and operating offshore platforms and pipelines also can cause direct impacts on natural, historical, and cultural resources, particularly from disturbance to the seafloor and benthic species. Those impacts would also be prevented because this regulation would not allow new oil and gas exploration, development, or production. Any construction, repair, replacement, or removal of existing oil and gas infrastructure that would disturb the submerged lands or potentially lead to discharges would require an ONMS authorization or other approval.
Most if not all of the platforms and pipelines within the sanctuary are likely to be decommissioned and removed within 10 years of sanctuary designation.
This prohibition would also not allow for development, including exploratory activities, of any seafloor minerals. While seafloor mining has not been proposed in this area, this regulation would ensure that the disturbance to benthic habitat and species likely to result from seafloor mining would not occur in the sanctuary.
This prohibition on discharges (NOAA uses “discharge” in this rule to refer to both “discharge and deposit” as used in the regulation) has three main elements: prohibition on any discharge within or into the sanctuary; discharge from beyond the sanctuary boundary that subsequently enters and injures sanctuary resources; and discharges from cruise ships. Each is explained in separate paragraphs below. All three sub-elements of this prohibition are consistent with discharge prohibitions in adjacent national marine sanctuaries.
The prohibition on discharges within or into the sanctuary is in recognition that various substances can be discharged from vessels or from infrastructure or individuals along the shoreline that can harm sanctuary resources or quality. The discharge regulations bolster existing authorities such as the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251
Oil discharged from vessels or from shore can cause acute toxicity in organisms, and can foul feathers of seabirds, leading to illness or death. Discharging other debris from vessels, by accident or on purpose, can lead to long-term impacts on resources. A chronic accumulation of plastics in marine ecosystems, for instance, can lead to an accumulation of plastic in marine organisms including those that are eventually ingested by humans.
NOAA is including some exceptions for this prohibition consistent with those exceptions at adjacent sanctuaries. For instance, NOAA is excepting discharge of fish, fish parts, chumming materials, or bait used in and resulting from lawful fishing activities within the sanctuary. NOAA is also excepting discharge of sewage waste from a vessel that has been treated by a Type I or Type II marine sanitation device, as these systems provide effective treatment for sewage as to mitigate any impact their discharge can have on marine resources. Normal vessel operations can also involve washing down the deck or the anchor, which is excepted provided the wash down qualifies as “clean” per the definition at 15 CFR 922.11. There are also normal discharges from operating motorized vessels that are excepted, such as clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator water, and clean bilge water, as well as exhaust from an engine or generator. Provided that these discharges are clean, they may be discharged within or into the sanctuary. The more common threat to sanctuary
NOAA is excepting the disposal of dredged material within the sanctuary at disposal sites approved by the EPA prior to designation. The sanctuary boundaries do not include the two known EPA-approved dredge disposal sites used for Morro Bay dredging. NOAA is not aware of any other such sites within the sanctuary. Nonetheless, this exception would allow an agency to demonstrate, after sanctuary designation, that a disposal site approved by the EPA existed prior to sanctuary designation.
Within the sanctuary, NOAA will also consider allowing via permit the beneficial use of material removed from dredging Port San Luis, specifically to protect or restore habitat such as a sandy beach. The beneficial use of dredged material for habitat protection or restoration purposes is different from the disposal, or discarding, of dredged material. A proposed project involving the beneficial use of dredged material from Port San Luis may be eligible for approval by NOAA if the project demonstrates a sanctuary habitat protection or restoration purpose and if the permit requirements and criteria are met.
NOAA is excepting routine discharges from U.S. Coast Guard operations, which is consistent with NOAA's approach at two other national marine sanctuaries offshore California, Cordell Bank and Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries. One part of the exception would allow U.S. Coast Guard vessels that lack sufficient holding tank capacity and lack a Type I or II marine sanitation device to discharge sewage and non-clean graywater beyond 3 nmi from shore. A second part of the exception would allow discharge of ammunition, pyrotechnics, and other material directly related to training from beyond 12 nmi from shore from U.S. Coast Guard vessels and aircraft conducting training activities for search and rescue and live ammunition fire in the sanctuary. NOAA recognizes that these exceptions are necessary to ensure existing U.S. Coast Guard patrols, operations, and training can be maintained in the new sanctuary. U.S. Coast Guard patrol vessels provide a tremendous benefit to NOAA by assisting with enforcement of national marine sanctuary regulations. Moreover, the U.S. Coast Guard is an essential element of marine safety to all mariners operating offshore in central California, and they also provide enforcement of other Federal laws, conduct drug smuggling interdiction activities, and protect the homeland. ONMS has developed plans with U.S. Coast Guard District 11 leadership through informal discussions and NMSA section 304(d) consultation to limit discharges into other west coast national marine sanctuaries and anticipates similar approaches could be explored for U.S. Coast Guard operations in the sanctuary. Therefore, NOAA considers the discharge exception for U.S. Coast Guard vessels appropriate.
Finally, NOAA is including an exception that would allow discharges incidental and necessary to normal oil and gas production activities from Platforms Irene and Heritage into reservoirs of existing leases and lease units in effect at the time of sanctuary designation. These could include drill mud to maintain well pressure and control during drilling as well as other materials necessary to force oil and gas products from one part of the reservoir into producing wells. The last step in the life of an oil and gas well is to abandon the well, with the operator pumping cement into the well to prevent release of hydrocarbons in the future; this activity would be part of the exception. Use of the depleted reservoirs for injection or storage of any material not considered incidental and necessary to normal oil and gas production would not be covered by the exception but could be considered via permit processes.
Discharges from beyond the boundary of the sanctuary would also be prohibited when those discharges subsequently enter the sanctuary and harm a sanctuary resource or quality. An example of this could be a spill from an onshore oil pipeline that flows down a creek, enters the sanctuary at the MHWL, and injures seabirds, fish, algae, or the sanctuary seafloor or other habitat. Unlike a discharge directly within or into the sanctuary, for a discharge to violate this prohibition, the discharge must injure a sanctuary resource or quality. This prohibition could also be applied to a spill or other discharge that originated from the marine environment and subsequently entered the sanctuary and injured a sanctuary resource or quality. The same exceptions that are included for the sub-element prohibiting discharge directly within or into the sanctuary would also apply for a discharge from beyond the boundary, except for the exception for dredge disposal and the exception for discharges incidental and necessary to oil and gas production. NOAA intends that dredge disposal discharges beyond the boundary of the sanctuary need to be designed in such a manner that they do not enter the sanctuary and injure sanctuary resources or qualities.
The third sub-element of this discharge regulation would prohibit discharge from cruise ships. Across most national marine sanctuaries, NOAA has applied consistent regulations that allow for fewer exceptions for cruise ship discharges than for other vessel discharges within or into sanctuaries because cruise ships can generate very large volumes of waste or other discharges. Even if treated, the volume of sewage and graywater, for instance, on a cruise ship of more than 2,000 passengers can reach several million gallons a day. Sewage discharge may contain bacteria or viruses that can cause disease in humans and wildlife, and can cause excessive growth and decomposition of oxygen-depleting plant life, resulting in harm or death to organisms. Section 4.2.1 of the final EIS provides additional detail on these sorts of discharges. The only exceptions for cruise ships discharging within CHNMS would be for clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, vessel engine or generator exhaust, clear bilge water, or anchor wash; in essence, discharges directly linked to propelling and operating the vessel itself.
The seabed is a large and important habitat in the ecosystem within the sanctuary, and NOAA is prohibiting activities that would drill into, dredge, or otherwise alter or disturb the submerged lands of the sanctuary. This prohibition would include constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter on the submerged lands. This is a common regulatory prohibition that NOAA has applied to most national marine sanctuaries. The purpose is to prevent activities that cause harm to habitat and species on or near the seafloor, such as drilling into or dredging into the seafloor. The regulation includes exceptions for certain activities including disturbance during the conduct of lawful fishing activities, kelp harvesting, or anchoring a vessel. NOAA is also excepting from this prohibition the installation of an aid to navigation, as well as the repair, replacement, or other maintenance on existing structures, specifically docks, piers,
For these exceptions, NOAA has considered both the anticipated level of disturbance to the submerged lands and the purpose of the specified activities, most of which are related to maritime safety. The proposed exceptions are intended to further the policy of the NMSA to facilitate public and private uses of sanctuary resources to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. However, in order to conserve and protect populations of coral and sponge colonies, NOAA will not apply any of these exceptions within the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone. The only exception that would apply within the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone is the exception for seabed disturbance conducted during lawful fishing activity as regulated under the MSA. Note, however, that most of the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone has been designated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council as groundfish essential fish habitat under the MSA, and areas in and around the zone are currently closed to bottom trawling under regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart C.
Certain currently proposed or contemplated future activities could result in disturbance to the submerged lands in the area proposed for sanctuary designation. Procedures described below in the section on General Permits, Authorizations, Certifications, and Special Use Permits could be used to allow such an activity that is otherwise prohibited, provided that the applicable criteria and requirements are met and that any permit conditions can be satisfied by developers. Examples of such activities that would be prohibited by the seabed disturbance regulation unless a sanctuary general permit, ONMS authorization, or certification were issued include construction and operation of subsea electrical transmission cables from wind development in Federal waters beyond the sanctuary, or construction and operation of wind platforms in State waters near Vandenberg Space Force Base. Disturbance of submerged lands during repair and maintenance of existing structures not listed as being exempted, such as oil pipelines to shore from Platform Irene, or trans-oceanic fiber optic telecommunications cables, would also require a permit, authorization, or certification from NOAA before proceeding.
With respect to subsea electrical transmission cables, BOEM cannot issue leases, rights of way, or easements for wind development within national marine sanctuaries per the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(10). As discussed in the final EIS, if, despite the boundaries selected for CHNMS, offshore wind developers require cable routing through the new sanctuary, NOAA intends to coordinate with BOEM on potential integration of NMSA authorities and BOEM's OCSLA authorities. NOAA has well-tested procedures to review and allow scientific collection, site assessment, and characterization activities through a sanctuary general permit for research purposes under 15 CFR part 922, subpart D, and 15 CFR 922.233 of this rule. NOAA is revising its 2011 Policy and Permitting Guidelines for Submarine Cables
NOAA acknowledges that the telecommunications industry has already made a large investment in submarine fiber optic cables in the area, with more cables being possible in the future. The following most likely permitting approach would be relevant to telecommunications cables that may be proposed or presently lie within the final sanctuary boundary. The following would also be relevant to any other type of submarine cable that may be proposed within the final sanctuary boundary. Sanctuary general permits, authorizations, and special use permits are only issued after satisfaction of permit review criteria and necessary reviews under NEPA, NHPA, and other environmental compliance processes are completed.
• For existing submarine cables within the sanctuary, NOAA could issue a certification of the existing Federal-, State- or locally-issued permit. If that underlying permit allows for repair and maintenance, or subsequent removal, NOAA can certify the permitted activity(ies) and avoid further permit review unless the underlying project or permit significantly changes.
• For the installation of a submarine cable on the outer continental shelf within the sanctuary, NOAA could issue an ONMS authorization of a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403), under 15 CFR 922.36 and 922.232(e) of this rule. NOAA is also evaluating whether there may be additional valid Federal, State, or local permits, licenses, or approvals that may also be authorized in this context.
• For installation of cables within State waters of the sanctuary, NOAA could similarly consider authorizing, under 15 CFR 922.36 and 922.232(e) of this rule, a lease issued by the State Lands Commission or a coastal development permit issued by the California Coastal Commission.
• Because historically USACE permits have had a limited time period and not applied to the entire lifetime of a cable project, NOAA has relied on the special use permit under section 310 of the NMSA to authorize the continued presence of the cable on or in the seabed within the sanctuary. However, as described in Section IV.H.4 of this final rule preamble, NOAA issued a
• To allow any necessary maintenance and repair associated with a cable that might cause a disturbance of the submerged lands of the sanctuary, NOAA could rely on the initial ONMS authorization of the USACE section 10 permit and/or State permit for the cable installation depending on whether it included future repair and maintenance. Alternatively, NOAA could issue an ONMS authorization of a separate USACE and/or State permit that is issued specifically for the maintenance and repair activity. As a third option for repair and maintenance of cables that pre-existed the sanctuary designation, NOAA could rely on its certification of the underlying permit if that permit authorized repair to and maintenance of the cable.
NOAA has coordinated with USACE regarding this approach in Federal waters, and intends to continue that coordination throughout the designation process and as plans for cabling in the area are developed. Regular coordination with State agencies has occurred in the past and NOAA would conduct specific coordination meetings related to submarine cable permitting as necessary. In sum, NOAA's final regulations contain several permitting mechanisms that provide NOAA with flexibility in its approach to any individual permitting request (see also section H of this preamble below and section 3.2.2 of the final EIS).
Decommissioning and removal activities that would disturb the sanctuary seabed, such as oil and gas platform removal, would require a permit, authorization, or certification from NOAA before proceeding. Further, NOAA has already commented, or could comment in the future as appropriate, to Federal, State, and local agencies leading regulatory review of these actions; also, some of these examples have been discussed with BOEM and BSEE, as cooperating agencies under NEPA for this designation, given the relevance to their authorities.
NOAA is prohibiting possessing, moving, removing, or injuring, or attempting to possess, move, remove, or injure a sanctuary historical resource, as defined at 15 CFR 922.11. This prohibition reduces the risk of direct harm to sanctuary historical and cultural resources. “Moving” and “injuring” include any changes to the position or State of historical resources, as well as covering, uncovering, moving, or taking artifacts from a shipwreck, even if the artifacts are not located directly on a shipwreck. Sanctuary historical resources include cultural and archaeological resources and artifacts. This sanctuary prohibition would apply within both State and Federal waters of the sanctuary and is necessary to ensure conservation of historical resources on the more than 100 ship and aircraft wrecks thought to exist in the sanctuary, as well as other known or unknown historical resources, such as resources that may be associated with submerged Native settlements.
This prohibition ensures conservation of important populations of marine mammals, sea turtles, and birds that are found in or above the sanctuary. The regulation would not apply should a person be authorized to take a marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird by NOAA or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The term “take” including “taking” is defined in the national sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.11.
This regulation is a companion to the preceding prohibition and would restrict a person's ability to possess any marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird within the sanctuary, except as allowed by the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA, or as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes.
Other adjacent national marine sanctuaries, similar to the proposed CHNMS, have considerable boating traffic along the coast and from local harbors. NOAA responds to dozens of vessel sinkings, groundings, and discharges each year in some of these national marine sanctuaries, many with significant response and restoration costs and damage to sanctuary resources. Along with responding to those incidents, NOAA has adopted this regulation as a means to prevent a vessel's sinking, grounding, or other incident, given that prevention is much less expensive than responding to incidents and can optimally prevent impacts and damage to sanctuary resources as well as to private property. NOAA is prohibiting deserting a vessel aground within the sanctuary for the same reasons. In the definition of the term “deserting” in the national sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.11, NOAA has clarified conditions that constitute deserting a vessel. Finally, with this proposed regulation NOAA is prohibiting leaving harmful matter aboard a grounded or deserted vessel in the sanctuary; the intent is to minimize additional damage to sanctuary resources. The sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.11 also define “harmful matter.”
White sharks function as a key species in coastal ecosystems in three broad areas in the world, with California and Baja California forming one of those population centers. Several different areas within the sanctuary have important populations of adult and sub-adult white sharks, and may offer linkage to other white shark aggregation areas in CINMS, MBNMS, and Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS). Including this regulation provides similar levels of protection to these central California white shark aggregation sites within CHNMS by preventing harm or behavioral disturbance to white sharks. The regulation applies the definition of “attract” in the national sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.11. The prohibition against attracting white sharks is intended to address harassment and disturbance related to human interaction from research activities directed at white sharks or shark diving programs known generally as adventure tourism, or from recreational boaters who may approach a white shark. NOAA has concluded these activities can degrade the natural environment, impacting the species as a whole, or adversely impacting individual sharks from repeated encounters with humans and boats. A similar prohibition against attracting great white sharks was promulgated for MBNMS in 1996 and GFNMS in 2008, and, at those sanctuaries, NOAA has not observed the inadvertent attraction of white sharks from lawful fishing activities. NOAA would have the ability to issue permits for activities that involve attracting a white shark if the permit procedures and requirements are met, as described below.
NOAA is adopting a regulatory framework for Rodriguez Seamount that is similar to its approach for Davidson Seamount in MBNMS. With the CHNMS regulations, NOAA is creating the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone to ensure conservation of diverse and rare resources found on the seamount, including coral and sponges and other invertebrates, or living in the water column immediately above it. The seamount has seafloor features that suggest it may have been exposed above sea level millions of years ago, and its uncommon geomorphologic and benthic habitat features could be damaged without further protection. The top of the seamount is at approximately 2,000 ft. water depth, so under the regulation there will be a buffer of 500 ft. above the top of the seamount to protect organisms that migrate above the seamount diurnally.
This prohibition does not apply to lawful fishing activity that is regulated under the MSA and its implementing regulations. NOAA, through conservation actions under the MSA, has prohibited bottom trawling on and around Rodriguez Seamount since June 2006. Additional protections provided to the seamount by the sanctuary regulations would protect the high biodiversity and deep-sea habitat on the seamount. Long life histories and slow growth of deep-sea communities mean that these habitats have long recovery times following injuries and adverse impacts; additional protections for resources 1,500 ft. below sea level (roughly 500 ft. above the top of the seamount) will add critical additional risk mitigation for these sensitive resources.
NOAA is prohibiting introducing or otherwise releasing an introduced species, as that term is defined in the national sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.11, into the sanctuary. NOAA has adopted the same introduced species regulation at other national marine sanctuaries offshore of California to prohibit the release of an introduced species into the sanctuary. Releases and subsequent spreading of introduced species have devastated marine ecosystems across the globe; most notably the alga
NOAA adopts a regulation, similar to regulations at other local national marine sanctuaries, to prohibit interfering with various sanctuary enforcement activities. This regulation will assist in NOAA's enforcement of the sanctuary regulations and strengthen sanctuary management.
The prohibitions for CHNMS would not apply to any activity necessary to respond to emergencies that threaten life, property, or the environment. However, this exemption for emergencies does not apply to the prohibitions on the development of oil, gas, or minerals; attracting a white shark; introducing an introduced species; or interfering with an investigation or other enforcement activity.
NOAA is establishing a broad exemption to allow existing activities carried out or approved by the various branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) as specifically identified in Chapter 4.9 or Appendix I to the final EIS. NOAA has coordinated with the DoD to include in Appendix I to the final EIS a list of the existing activities that occur in or immediately adjacent to the sanctuary that would qualify for this exemption.
The area overlaps with the Point Mugu sea range and is adjacent to Vandenberg Space Force Base, which conducts both military missions from the base as well as hosting commercial space launches. All launches from the base or within the proposed sanctuary that are carried out or approved by DoD would be included in this exemption. With respect to commercial and civil launches from the base and associated activities, DoD has informed NOAA that:
• DoD approval is required for these activities.
• DoD conducts NEPA reviews for these activities. Other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the U.S. Coast Guard, may be cooperating agencies for purposes of these NEPA reviews.
• DoD also conducts all required natural and cultural resource consultations for these activities.
• Civil partners and commercial providers conducting these activities are required to comply with DoD best management practices.
NOAA advises that based on public comments received, additional coordination with DoD, and NOAA's experience administering the National Marine Sanctuary System, pursuant to NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act, final EIS Appendix I reflects minor changes to the list of exempted activities based on DoD's administrative record of environmental compliance for the exempted activities. These minor conforming changes were made to ensure that the list of exempted activities in Appendix I reflects the most current information as to the existing activities that DoD carries out or approves and includes references to the environmental compliance materials that DoD provided. As such, these minor changes are consistent with the purposes of the proposed rule and do not alter the no adverse impacts conclusion in final EIS Section 4.9.
New DoD activities that would not otherwise be prohibited by the CHNMS regulations would not require an amendment to the list of exempted activities. For those new DoD activities that would otherwise be prohibited by the CHNMS regulations, NOAA has included in the regulations a process whereby the ONMS Director, upon consultation with the appropriate counterpart at the DoD, can also exempt such new activities carried out by the DoD. An activity is considered to be a new activity, and not covered by the exemption for existing DoD activities, if the activity is new or modified in any
A new activity that is not covered by the exemption for existing DoD activities could be conducted if a sanctuary general permit or ONMS authorization, as applicable, were issued for the proposed activity. In addition, NOAA commits to working with the DoD to consider exempting new activities from the CHNMS regulatory prohibitions through subsequent rulemaking procedures, for instance in subsequent management plan and regulatory review processes for CHNMS. Any changes to the list of exempted DoD activities could only occur after compliance with all applicable laws, such as the Administrative Procedure Act and NEPA, as necessary, and after public notice and comment, as applicable.
NOAA is willing to work with the DoD to create a mechanism whereby new activities that are likely to injure sanctuary resources, and thereby also require section 304(d) consultation, could be handled in a single, consolidated review.
This final regulation also contains language common to regulations for other national marine sanctuaries about obligations of the DoD in the event an incident results in threatened or actual destruction, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary resource or quality. NOAA recognizes that this broad exemption is necessary to ensure military readiness for the DoD to conduct existing training, operations, and military readiness activities in the area proposed to be designated as a national marine sanctuary. The United States military has been able to maintain readiness and conduct training and other operations in other national marine sanctuaries based on similar broad exemptions.
NOAA is not including any sanctuary-specific regulation to allow for development of emergency regulations to address urgent threats to sanctuary resources. Rather, the emergency regulation provision included in the regulations of general applicability, which apply to all national marine sanctuaries (see 15 CFR 922.7), would also apply to CHNMS. Emergency regulations are used when there is an imminent risk to sanctuary resources and a temporary regulation or prohibition is necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction or loss of those resources, or otherwise minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury.
NOAA is including authority to issue sanctuary general permits to allow certain activities that would otherwise violate prohibitions in the sanctuary's regulations. This language would not allow issuance of a sanctuary general permit for oil, gas, or mineral exploration, development, or production; introducing an introduced species; or interfering with an investigation or other enforcement activity; or as further limited in § 922.232(f) of the proposed regulations. National marine sanctuary program-wide regulations describe, at 15 CFR 922.30, different purposes for which a sanctuary general permit could be issued, three of which would apply to this proposed sanctuary: “Research—activities that constitute scientific research or scientific monitoring of a national marine sanctuary resource or quality,” “Education—activities that enhance public awareness, understanding, or appreciation of a national marine sanctuary or national marine sanctuary resource or quality,” and “Management—activities that assist in managing a national marine sanctuary.”
NOAA is adding to the list at § 922.30, an additional purpose specific to CHNMS for which a sanctuary general permit could be issued: “Native American cultural or ceremonial activities—activities within Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary that will promote or enhance local Native American cultural or ceremonial activities; or will promote or enhance education and training related to local Native American cultural or ceremonial activities.” NOAA has adopted this general permit category to address a need identified during scoping. Specifically, NOAA received a scoping comment letter stating that Indigenous peoples should be allowed to conduct the following cultural activities in the proposed sanctuary, subject to all other applicable law: collecting culturally-significant resources including bones, feathers, shells, animals, and plants; burials of cremated remains in biodegradable receptacles; survey and other work at submerged Indigenous living sites, like villages or caves, including collecting artifacts like stone bowls or pestles. ONMS may be able to allow some of these activities to occur within the proposed sanctuary under existing authorities and the current general permit categories at § 922.30 (
The regulations will require compliance with 15 CFR part 922, subpart D, in the national regulations for permit application processes, review procedures, amendments, and other permitting stipulations. These national permitting regulations include a list of factors NOAA considers in deciding whether or not to issue the permit, such as whether the activity must be conducted within the sanctuary, or whether the activity will be compatible with the primary objective of protection of sanctuary resources and qualities. NOAA will be able to impose specific terms and conditions through a permit as appropriate.
Under 16 U.S.C. 1434(c), NOAA may not terminate any valid lease, permit, license or right of subsistence use or access (“permit or right”) that is in existence on the date of designation of a sanctuary. However, NOAA may regulate the exercise of such permit or right consistent with the purposes for which the sanctuary is designated. Pre-existing activities specifically authorized by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, or rights of subsistence use or access might be
Pursuant to § 922.36 in the national regulations and § 922.232(e) in the CHNMS regulations, NOAA will have the authority to consider allowing an activity otherwise prohibited by § 922.232 if such activity is specifically authorized by any valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date of sanctuary designation. This “ONMS authorization authority” will apply to most of the proposed prohibitions as outlined in § 922.232(e) and as limited in § 922.232(f). However, NOAA could not issue an authorization to allow for exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or minerals, or for interfering with an investigation or other enforcement action. In general, an ONMS authorization could not be issued to allow for an introduction of an introduced species; however, NOAA proposes a process by which an ONMS authorization for aquaculture projects raising an introduced species approved by the State of California could be issued after making certain findings. NOAA has previously adopted a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the State of California for considering aquaculture projects raising an introduced species in State waters of MBNMS and intends to update that MOA to address future aquaculture projects raising an introduced species that may be proposed within CHNMS.
NOAA has the authority under the NMSA to issue special use permits (SUPs) at national marine sanctuaries, as established by section 310 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1441) and by 15 CFR 922.31. SUPs can be used to authorize specific activities in a sanctuary if such authorization is necessary to establish conditions of access to, and use of, any sanctuary resource or to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary resource. Section 310 of the NMSA establishes four requirements for SUPs: (1) activities must be compatible with the purposes for which the sanctuary is designated and with protection of sanctuary resources; (2) SUPs shall not authorize the conduct of any activity for a period of more than five years unless otherwise renewed; (3) activities carried out under the SUP must be conducted in a manner that does not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources; and (4) permittees are required to purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance, or post an equivalent bond, against claims arising out of activities conducted under the SUP and to agree to hold the United States harmless against such claims. The NMSA authorizes NOAA to assess and collect fees for the conduct of any activity under an SUP, including costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, in issuing the permit and the fair market value use of sanctuary resources; for instance, for use of the seabed to protect a buried cable from anchor damage. Implementing regulations at 15 CFR 922.35 provide additional detail on assessment of fees for SUPs. Like with sanctuary general permits, NOAA can place conditions on SUPs specific to the activity being permitted.
The activities that may qualify for a SUP are set forth in the
However, as memorialized in a
As further described in the August 16, 2024 date
SUP categories that are potentially relevant to known activities at the proposed CHNMS include the discharge of cremated human remains, and discharges from fireworks displays.
NOAA is including a section of the regulations describing two memoranda of agreement it will enter into for interagency coordination to address regulatory or statutory issues—introduced species aquaculture projects and the Sunken Military Craft Act. Regarding introduced species, NOAA has previously established an agreement to coordinate with State agencies on review of aquaculture projects that could include introduced species into MBNMS and GFNMS. NOAA would revise and update that to include CHNMS. This regulation also acknowledges that sunken military craft in CHNMS will continue to be administered by the respective Secretary concerned pursuant to the Sunken Military Craft Act. NOAA will enter into
The general regulations in 15 CFR part 922, subpart A, for general information and 15 CFR part 922, subpart D, for National Marine Sanctuary permitting are also amended so that the regulations are accurate and up-to-date. The modified sections to conform to adding a new sanctuary are:
This final rule includes NOAA's responses to some comments from Appendix A of the final EIS. These comments and responses are included in this preamble because they address the significant issues raised in public comments on the proposed rule and offer additional information about why certain changes were made to the rule, the terms of designation, the regulations, or the management plan. The final rule retains the numbering/naming of the comment from Appendix A so readers can track the comments that have been included in this preamble and more efficiently find other related comments/responses in Appendix A that have not been included in this preamble. As such, cross-references have been retained here for completeness. For a full scope of all of the comments received on the draft designation documents, including the draft EIS and the draft management plan, and their responses, please review Appendix A of the final EIS.
1.
2.
The designation materials include the rule, the final EIS and the final management plan. These materials have been revised through the extensive public process outlined above. Only the regulations that are necessary to address threats to sanctuary resources are included in the designation. See also the Regulations and Permitting section of comments and responses. Regarding concerns about restricted access, NOAA's sanctuary regulations impose no limits on public access to sanctuary waters (see response to Comment SE-8), and will encourage responsible use and enjoyment of the sanctuary (see, for example, the management plan's Blue Economy Action Plan).
3.
4.
The reasons for further reducing the final sanctuary boundary at this time center around clarifying information provided by the three Morro Bay offshore wind energy lease holders during the public comment period, and NOAA's consideration of this information in light of renewable energy and conservation goals, the purposes and policies of the NMSA, and the purpose and need of the proposed sanctuary. NOAA also considered public comments supporting offshore wind energy development, as well as the State of California's support for sanctuary designation and the State's goal for transitioning to 100% clean energy. In public comments, the leaseholders identified a need to develop between 15-24 subsea electrical transmission cables between offshore leases and two landing sites at Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon grid connections. Presently they estimate landing roughly half of the cables at each grid connection. The three leaseholders' current design requirements may mean they will seek access to a portion of the seabed between 30-45 miles wide, narrowing as cables approach land and shallower water. Their comments on the draft EIS note that subsea electrical transmission cables need broad gradual bends (rather than sharp turns) and need to cross other cables at largely 90-degree angles. With these parameters, all of the boundaries analyzed in the EIS for CHNMS would be expected to require cable routing from the Morro Bay leases through the sanctuary to shore, except for Alternative 4. While the draft EIS anticipated the leaseholders may need to route cables to DCPP and that NOAA could rely on its permitting process to review such cable placement, the lease holders expressed persistent concerns. Several of the Morro Bay leaseholders expressed persistent concerns with the NOAA permit process for submarine cables and whether or not, in the end, they would be able to obtain permit approvals from NOAA to construct 15-24 subsea electrical transmission cables within the sanctuary from the offshore leases to onshore grid connections. They also expressed concerns that existing sanctuary permitting procedures could jeopardize their ability to obtain financing for their development, and they sought to avoid the introduction of any permitting risk that NOAA might be unable in the future to approve one, several or all permit requests for cables in the sanctuary.
In considering an area for designation, the NMSA requires NOAA to, “enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the marine environment . . .,” 16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(4), and to evaluate, among other factors, the manageability of the area, the negative impacts produced by management restrictions on resources development, and socioeconomic effects of sanctuary designation. 16 U.S.C. 1433(b). At this final designation phase, NOAA has reconsidered offshore wind industry concerns regarding the sanctuary in the particular context of the Morro Bay leases, in conjunction with existing infrastructure and competing uses of the proposed sanctuary area, and in light of the purposes and policies of the NMSA as referenced above. including any potential, negative impacts produced by Sanctuary management restrictions on resources development, as well as the sustainable use of the marine resources to support renewable energy, climate change mitigation, and conservation goals. NOAA has identified this adjusted boundary, which would further the purpose and need of the sanctuary designation while also supporting renewable energy goals of the Administration and the State of California through allowing offshore wind developers to complete siting and permitting for subsea electrical transmission cables from the three Morro Bay offshore wind leases to landing sites at both Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon without having to route cables through the new sanctuary, given their permitting uncertainty concerns as described above. The Final Preferred Alternative would be the most manageable boundary at this time and would allow the new sanctuary to focus on numerous core activities outlined in the management plan without the need to focus resources on myriad permitting issues related to offshore wind development. If NOAA decides to adopt sanctuary protections at a later time for additional areas (see the final management plan's Boundary Adjustment Action Plan), such a process would be informed by an improved, more certain understanding of offshore wind development in this area.
The Final Preferred Alternative meets the purposes and need for the designation as described in Chapter 2 of the final EIS, and it meets the designation standards identified in Section 303 of the NMSA. NOAA also acknowledges and affirms its commitment to respecting Indigenous Knowledge and promoting co-stewardship in this area while advancing climate and conservation goals. This final sanctuary boundary would allow protection of nationally-significant natural, ecological, historical, and cultural resources along 116 miles of the California coast, out to nearly 60 miles from shore and a maximum depth of 11,580 feet. The total area within the Final Preferred Alternative is 4,543 square miles, making it one of the largest national marine sanctuaries in the National Marine Sanctuary System, if the Final Preferred Alternative is selected.
The draft EIS and the proposed rule provided notice to the public that, based on public comments received on the draft designation documents and NOAA's experience administering the National Marine Sanctuary System, pursuant to NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act, NOAA may choose to identify an alternative in the final rule and final EIS that is within the geographic and regulatory scope of the alternatives considered in the draft EIS. Alternatives 4 and 5b along with the small, additional area included over the Santa Lucia Bank (analyzed in the Initial Boundary Alternative), and impacts associated with these alternatives, are thoroughly discussed in the draft EIS. NOAA received public comments on these alternatives that it carefully considered in identifying the Final Preferred Alternative. As explained in Section 3.6 of the final EIS, the minor variation in the boundary for
NOAA considers the Final Preferred Alternative to be Phase 1 for establishing national marine sanctuary protection for this important coastline and these nationally-significant resources. At the first management plan review process beginning on or before January 2032, NOAA commits to evaluating and considering the need for and suitability of several potential boundary adjustments to protect additional areas, including moving the CHNMS boundary to the southern end of MBNMS. Resources worthy of and requiring sanctuary protection would be assessed at that time and the appropriateness of expanding the sanctuary would be evaluated. Any subsequent boundary adjustments would be guided by Section 304 of the NMSA and would require a separate public process under the NMSA and NEPA. A “Boundary Adjustment Action Plan” has been added to the final management plan.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
While current technical/scientific/cultural surveys do not permit the level of mapping detail requested by one commenter at this time, it is also not necessary to generate this information and not required by the NMSA or NEPA. NOAA has extensively demonstrated the national significance of resources throughout the area. The entirety of the area supports ecosystem connectivity necessary for the health of the biological resources, and NOAA has learned from Tribes and Indigenous groups about the cultural significance throughout the area.
18.
See Section 3.9.7 of the final EIS for NOAA's explanation on why the regulations do not address issues regarding fishing restrictions, vessel speed limits, designating areas to be avoided, and regulation of recreational activities.
19.
NOAA looks forward to continued partnership with State and Federal agencies to leverage resources and achieve greater resource management effectiveness and efficiencies. NOAA does not consider sanctuary regulations to be overly burdensome, and has provided several logical exceptions and permitting options to allow the continuation of activities that are compatible with the sanctuary's goals. Non-regulatory programs at CHNMS will be a central focus of how NOAA manages the new sanctuary, for instance various education and outreach initiatives to help the public understand and support the protections put in place for the new sanctuary (see the Education and Outreach Action Plan in the final management plan). Also, see responses to comments GN-2 (opposition to sanctuary), GN-11, and WQ-9 (duplicative regulations), and final EIS Section 2.2.1. Final EIS Section 2.2.1 provides a detailed discussion of why a comprehensive management approach offered by national marine sanctuary designation is needed to protect the resources of this area, including specific examples of the sanctuary regulatory and non-regulatory programs that could help fill existing gaps in protection and management.
20.
21.
22.
Sanctuary regulations will, however, otherwise prohibit new oil and gas exploration, production, or development after sanctuary designation. Likewise, the regulations will prohibit exploring for, producing, or developing minerals in the sanctuary, and thus no mining in the sanctuary would be allowed. Furthermore, the regulations will provide that NOAA cannot issue permits or authorizations that would allow for any further exceptions to the prohibition on exploring for, producing, or developing oil, gas, or minerals in the sanctuary (see 15 CFR 922.232(f)).
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
There is precedent for NOAA approval of submarine cables (mostly fiber optic cables) that are within a national marine sanctuary or that pass through a sanctuary. The final designation materials make clear that NOAA believes subsea electrical transmission cables, like submarine fiber optic cables in this and other sanctuaries, can be compatible with a sanctuary and can be approved subject to sufficient environmental review, mitigation, and consultation with partner agencies and provided an applicant satisfies permit review criteria.
30.
The State of California retains authority to issue leases for wind platforms in State waters of the sanctuary. As noted in responses to comments OW-1 and OW-33, NOAA is participating in the environmental review for the CADEMO project in State waters where four offshore floating wind platforms are proposed. That review process will provide NOAA appropriate, project-specific information and the opportunity to coordinate with State agency partners on the appropriate action for that proposal.
NOAA concurs with the comment that subsea electrical transmission cables transporting power to shore from wind farms beyond the sanctuary, where such cables pass through the sanctuary, can be permitted and can be considered compatible with the sanctuary subject to proper siting, environmental review, and collaboration with partner agencies and provided an applicant satisfies permit review criteria.
31.
NOAA has identified the Final Preferred Alternative for reasons explained in more detail in Section 5.4.9 of the final EIS, in part to allow the offshore wind industry to achieve its goals with respect to the Morro Bay leases. If in the future, offshore wind developers propose subsea electrical transmission cables to pass through this or another sanctuary, NOAA is confident that it has an adequate permit process to review, consider, and ultimately approve, as appropriate, subsea electrical transmission cables. See also the response to Comments OW-1, BO-1, and BO-11.
32.
In 2024, NOAA plans to update the cable permitting guidelines in an action, subject to public review and comment, separate from this sanctuary designation. NOAA announced this commitment in a
The CHNMS regulations on disturbance of the submerged lands are modeled off, and largely consistent with, the comparable regulations for other sanctuaries offshore California. NOAA considers it preferable to provide consistent, system-wide cable permitting clarifications and guidance through the separate action described above, rather than alter the CHNMS regulations through this CHNMS-specific designation.
As addressed in responses to Comments BO-1, OW-8, OW-10, OW-14 and others, NOAA is nonetheless identifying a Final Preferred Alternative that would adjust the CHNMS boundary to largely eliminate the need for any of the developers of wind leases offshore Morro Bay to route a cable through and seek a permit from NOAA.
33.
34.
35.
An additional consideration is that the offshore wind development projects in Federal waters off Morro Bay are far ahead of CADEMO, which still is in the conceptual phase, lacking leases from the State for development. Also, in Section 4.7.3 of the final EIS, NOAA explained four potential development scenarios for CADEMO involving State leasing and permitting, three of which lead to no adverse impact from the sanctuary designation on development of this project in State waters. Given these facts and given the State itself has not requested that NOAA provide any special boundary or regulatory exception for this singular development project, NOAA is not adopting the particular requests made by CADEMO that it be given special regulatory exceptions or boundary exclusions for developing its project. NOAA will participate in the environmental review for the CADEMO project. That review process will provide NOAA appropriate, project-specific information and the opportunity to coordinate with State agency partners on the appropriate action for that proposal. See responses to Comments OW-33 and OW-35 for more information about NOAA's decision making process related to the CADEMO project.
36.
No specific stand-alone section regarding submarine fiber optic cables has been added to the final management plan. However, a new strategy has been added to the Offshore Energy Action Plan regarding improving information about various permitting processes, and the telecommunications industry and reference to submarine fiber optic cables are included there (see Strategy OE-3). The final management plan also includes a new activity to improve coordination among agencies and users of the seabed. NOAA acknowledges that the telecommunications industry needs to be a part of that process (see Activity OE-4.4). The telecommunications industry is also noted as a critical participant in a new Blue Economy activity, Activity BE-3.4.
37.
The EIS meets or exceeds NEPA requirements to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. During scoping of the EIS, NOAA considered the telecommunication industry's request that cables either be excluded via boundaries or via exceptions in regulations, but did not accept the requests. That consideration was outlined in the draft EIS (Section 3.9.4), and NOAA has added additional clarifications to that analysis in the final EIS. Some of the alternative boundary configurations would achieve some of the exclusion sought by the telecommunications companies (see Alternative 3 and 4 in particular) but NOAA did not include in its alternative analysis a boundary option that would exclude all fiber optic cables, as any such boundary would have been too small to meet the purpose and need for the sanctuary. NEPA does not require NOAA to consider an infinite range of all possible alternatives, but rather, only those alternatives that are feasible and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. In final EIS section 3.9.4, NOAA also explained that it rejected the alternative of providing a regulatory exception for fiber optic cables to ensure NOAA could review proposed seabed disturbance and provide appropriate mitigation measures to minimize impact on sanctuary resources. While NOAA has identified several regulatory exceptions to the prohibition on disturbance of the submerged lands, most of these regulatory exceptions are directly related to maritime safety and have an anticipated low or de minimis level of disturbance to the submerged lands.
38.
39.
NOAA does provide exceptions to the prohibition on disturbing the submerged lands for maintenance dredging of harbor mouths or for repair of a harbor jetty or breakwater, because these are typically public facilities or activities necessary to promote or allow public navigation or public access to the ocean.
40.
NOAA has amended the timeline for certifications to clarify confusion in different parts of the proposed regulations and draft management plan. Section 15 CFR 922.234(a)(1) has been revised to allow a party to seek a certification within 120 days (rather than 90 days) of the effective date of sanctuary designation. The final sanctuary regulations also include other modifications to the certification process to provide some of the adjustments sought by industry. For example, Section 922.234(e) has been modified to remove the authority to hold a hearing; Section 922.234(g) has been revised to narrow the conditions for amending or revoking a certification after issuance; and, Section 922.234(h) has been removed because it was open-ended and unnecessary given the revisions to (g). These amendments are consistent with the issues, policies, and purposes discussed in the proposed rule, and constitute procedural updates and technical corrections and clarifications. The purpose of the amendments is to respond to concerns received in public comment and ensure the CHNMS certification process is consistent with NMSA § 304(c). The NMSA does allow NOAA to impose reasonable conditions on the exercise of a preexisting lease, permit, license, or right consistent with the purpose of the sanctuary. See final EIS Section 3.2.2 for revised regulations.
NOAA further clarifies that denial, revocation, amendment, or suspension of a certification does not mean that NOAA is terminating the underlying permit or right. Rather, it means that a person exercising a pre-existing permit or right within the sanctuary in a manner that does not comply with the certification regulations or the terms and conditions of an issued certification, where the activity is otherwise prohibited by the sanctuary regulations, could be subject to an enforcement action pursuant to Section 307 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
NOAA acknowledges that § 922.232(a)(2)(iii) introduces an additional source of potential liability for dischargers, but this is not inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act is intended to broadly protect “the Nation's waters,” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a), whereas the NMSA protects areas of “special national significance” where existing Federal and State authorities are inadequate or should be supplemented to accomplish coordinated and comprehensive coordination and management, 16 U.S.C. 1433(a)(2)-(3). The commenter points to the Clean Water Act's “permit shield” provision at 33 U.S.C. 1342(k). But that provision, by its own plain terms, provides only that compliance with a NPDES permit is deemed compliance with certain specific provisions of the Clean Water Act; it is not a blanket insulation from all forms of potential liability.
Thus, NOAA is not amending the proposed regulatory language for 15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(iii). See also response to Comment WQ-2.
65.
The exception for USCG vessels operating beyond 3 nautical miles from shore is consistent with a similar exception requested by USCG and granted by NOAA for GFNMS and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS). NOAA has developed plans with USCG District 11 leadership through informal discussions to limit discharges into other west coast national marine sanctuaries and anticipates similar approaches could be explored for USCG operations in the proposed sanctuary. If a USCG vessel has a Type I or Type II MSD, it must use that within the sanctuary prior to discharging sewage. NOAA included the exception for USCG vessels without adequate treatment or storage because of the importance of having USCG vessels able to patrol and carry out critical safety and national security operations in the sanctuary. USCG patrol vessels provide a tremendous benefit to NOAA by assisting with enforcement of national marine sanctuary regulations. See EIS sections 4.4 and 4.6 for additional details related to expected impacts on vessels engaged in lawful activities (commercial and recreational, respectively).
66.
67.
68.
NOAA has sought to meaningfully consult and engage with local Tribes and Indigenous communities of the central coast of California throughout the sanctuary designation process, informing the partnership approach described in the management plan's Indigenous Collaborative Co-Stewardship structure and future cultural programs. At the same time, NOAA understands there are continued disagreements concerning Tribal affiliation, legitimacy, and Indigenous identity, and about who should and should not speak for Chumash people, interests, or groups. Comments received on the proposed rule objected to Tribal “authenticity,” and alternatively objected to anyone questioning Tribal authenticity (see Comment TI-5). NOAA has not made, and does not intend to make, determinations regarding the “authenticity” of any individual or group's asserted affiliation with the Chumash people; rather, NOAA recognizes the unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and the SYBCI, the only federally recognized Tribe in the region, and in addition broadly invites non-federally recognized local Tribes and Indigenous groups to participate in sanctuary stewardship and programs in a way that can appropriately elevate Indigenous voices. In this manner, NOAA seeks to provide opportunities for the Indigenous peoples of the central coast to share their culture and wisdom publicly as they would like it to be shared.
NOAA expects that many groups throughout the diverse communities of the California central coast will continue to be interested in seeing and helping the sanctuary succeed. NOAA understands this diversity of local groups to include those involved with Chumash history, heritage, education, cultural practices, and more. NOAA has revised the Introduction section of the final management plan to State it does not have the authority to adjudicate claims of authenticity or disputes between groups with claims of Tribal ancestry, and NOAA declines to do so. NOAA has focused on developing a management plan that takes into account the deep connection and history of Indigenous Peoples to the sanctuary's coastal areas.
NOAA also intends to conduct required Tribal consultations, work with interested local Tribes and Indigenous groups through coordination and engagement processes as appropriate, and, as a starting point, through formation of an Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel and the various other means reflected in the proposed Indigenous Collaborative Co-Stewardship framework presented in the management plan.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
NOAA has determined that the designation of Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary (CHNMS) will not have a negative impact on the National Marine Sanctuary System and that sufficient resources exist to effectively implement sanctuary management plans and to update site characterizations. The NMSA section 304(f) finding is available on the CHNMS website at:
As described in section I above, NOAA prepared a final EIS to evaluate the impacts of designating a national marine sanctuary, which considered alternatives for national marine sanctuary designation along and offshore of the coast of central California. Copies of the final EIS, final management plan, and Record of Decision (ROD) for this action are available at the address and website listed in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined this final rule is significant action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 190 (Oct 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023). Based upon the information provided in NOAA's accompanying Cost-Benefit Analysis (final EIS appendix D), this final rule would not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 14094. This means the estimated annual effect is less than $200 million, and the action would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. Therefore, NOAA did not prepare the full regulatory impact analysis under E.O. 12866.
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not have federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132 because NOAA supplements and complements Federal, State, and local laws under the NMSA rather than supersedes or conflicts with them. NOAA has coordinated with State partners in the development of this final rule. NOAA has aimed for consistent regulations throughout sanctuary waters including those within State and Federal jurisdiction.
Under Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, Federal departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with officials of federally recognized Tribal Nations on the development of Federal policies that have Tribal implications. The Executive Order identifies fundamental principles guiding agencies in formulating or implementing policies that have Tribal implications, including working with federally recognized Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian Tribal self-government, Tribal trust resources,
NOAA identified the SYBCI as the only federally recognized Tribe in the area of CHNMS. To date, six formal consultation meetings have been conducted, on January 27, 2022, April 14, 2022, August 12, 2022, September 1, 2022, December 19, 2022, and May 30, 2024, as well as one informational meeting with NOAA leadership on April 28, 2022. Outside of consultation meetings, staff-level communications and coordination between NOAA and SYBCI has been frequent. In the course of this consultation, NOAA shared relevant portions of the draft EIS, draft management plan, and final EIS with the SYBCI, and has incorporated comments received and information exchanged to revise and update designation materials. NOAA's government-to-government consultation with the SYBCI for the purpose of designating the new national marine sanctuary will conclude upon sanctuary designation. In concluding consultation, NOAA will follow its policies under NAO 218-8 and the NOAA Tribal Consultation Handbook.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at the proposed rule phase (88 FR 58123) that this action, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose, context, and statutory basis for this action is described above and not repeated here. The analysis below discusses the potential effects of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary designation and serves as the factual basis for the certification. The analysis below has been updated to explain why the selection of the Final Preferred Alternative, which is smaller than the area NOAA analyzed in the proposed rule, leads NOAA to expect that fewer vessels will operate in CHNMS than reported in the proposed rule. Although NOAA has made minor changes to the regulations from the proposed rule to the final rule, none of the changes alter the initial determination that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. NOAA also did not receive any comments on the certification or conclusions. Therefore, the determination that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities remains unchanged. In summary, with this rulemaking, small businesses (commercial fishing, for-hire charter operations) are not expected to experience significant impacts. The extent of costs imposed on businesses would be $172 for those seeking a general sanctuary permit.
NOAA has identified commercial and for-hire fishing vessels and the non-consumptive recreational industry, which includes for-hire operations such as wildlife viewing, as small entities impacted by the Initial Boundary Alternative. Each relevant small business category is based on the most recent size standards published by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) (2022). Size standards are based upon the average annual receipts (all revenue) or the average employment of a firm. The commercial size standard is $25.0 million for finfish fishing (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code—114111), $14.0 million for shellfish fishing (NAICS code—114112), and $11.5 million for other marine fishing (NAICS code—114119). Water-based scenic and sightseeing transportation operations (NAICS code—487210), such as for-hire recreational fishing operations and dive/snorkeling for-hire operations, have size standards of $14.0 million. All businesses within the industries analyzed here are small businesses, which include commercial and recreational fishing and non-consumptive recreational businesses. There are other businesses that operate within the study area; however, they are not considered small businesses (
All commercial fishing and for-hire fishing vessel count data presented in this section are derived from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) data. NOAA calculated the potential number of vessels that may be impacted by the rule—as implemented in the draft EIS Agency-Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2 and Gaviota Coast Extension (Sub-Alternative 5b))—based on the number of vessels reporting activity, from 2016-2020, within the CDFW statistical areas that best align with the draft EIS Agency-Preferred Alternative boundary. The area affected by the Final Preferred Alternative boundary is smaller than the area NOAA analyzed in the 2023 proposed rule. As such, NOAA expects fewer vessels will operate in CHNMS than reported in the proposed rule. Statistical areas were included in the analysis if their center is located within the draft EIS Agency-Preferred Alternative boundary. In total, 53 statistical areas were included in the area analyzed—meaning if a fishing vessel landed at least one pound of commercial fish species within one of the 53 statistical areas within the study period, that vessel was considered in this analysis. Further information, including maps of the statistical areas included may be found in Eynon, 2023. Estimates of the number of vessels that operate within the draft EIS Agency-Preferred Alternative boundaries are provided below. Data for non-consumptive industries are not publicly available, so information was collected from personal communication with NOAA staff.
All commercial fishing vessels were determined to be small businesses based on the SBA size standards. On average (2016-2020), 250.6 vessels landed at least one pound of marine life within the area analyzed each year and 3,057.6 commercial fishing vessels operated within the State (CDFW, 2020a, 2021, 2020b, 2019, 2018, 2017).
For-hire recreational fishing includes both charter boats and headboats. Charter boats are fishing vessels that are typically hired to take up to six anglers on a fishing trip. In general, charter boats charge on a per-trip basis. Headboats usually operate on a schedule and may provide several trips in a single day, taking multiple fishing parties per trip and charging on a per-person basis. Headboats are usually larger and able to accommodate more anglers than a charter boat. All recreational fishing operations were determined to be small businesses. From 2016 through 2020, there was an annual average of 18.8 for-hire recreational fishing vessels operating within the draft EIS Agency-Preferred Alternative boundaries annually and 532 vessels on average each year operating within the State (CDFW, 2020c, 2021, 2020b, 2019, 2018, 2017).
Businesses considered to operate in the non-consumptive recreation industry include dive and snorkel operations, rental equipment operations, wildlife viewing operations, and other businesses that either utilize or whose customers utilize, but do not take, sanctuary resources.
There are several harbors within the study area that support non-consumptive recreation businesses. Santa Barbara, Morro Bay, and Avila Beach all have been identified to have operations that use the harbors. Across these three harbors, NOAA identified nine operations that are likely to use the sanctuary's waters to support their operations for whale watching and other wildlife viewing (NOAA personal communication). All of these businesses were determined to be small businesses. No operations visiting the sanctuary for white shark tours were identified.
This regulatory action would establish new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for small entities that apply for sanctuary general permits, certifications, or authorizations (see 15 CFR part 922 and the description in part III, section H above). As a result of this action, only a minimal increase in the number of permits (approximately 5-15 permits per year) is expected, and these requirements would have a minimal impact on small entities because few operators in the area would need to apply for a permit in order to continue their activities. Minimal reporting and recordkeeping requirements are expected because lawful commercial and recreational fishing and recreational activities would be allowed to continue in the sanctuary without a permit (with certain exceptions discussed below). An operator would be required to obtain a permit only if they wish to conduct activities that would be prohibited in the sanctuary; for example, if a research operation or commercial activity was likely to result in damage to the seabed, a permit would be required unless an exception or exemption applies.
As discussed below, in section G., the public reporting burden for ONMS general permits is estimated to average three responses with an average of 1.5 hours per response, to include application submission, a cruise or flight log (or some other form of activity report), and a final summary report after the activity is complete. The only expected costs are related to permitting. The total cost estimate for reporting a permit is $171.68 based on an hourly rate of $38.15 (see Paperwork Reduction Act OMB control number (0648-0141
It is also likely that increased name recognition, marketing, and outreach of the sanctuary would result in increased demand for the services offered by small businesses that utilize sanctuary resources. This is described in more detail in the economic review of the potential impacts; see Appendix D of the final EIS.
As described above, NOAA does not expect a significant reduction in profits, as the only expected costs are for permitting ($172 per permit). No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified for this rule. Therefore, NOAA has concluded that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities operating in the area of the sanctuary due to the minimal permitting costs. Therefore, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none was prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
NOAA has an OMB control number (0648-0141) for the collection of public information related to the processing of ONMS permits across the National Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA's proposal to create a national marine sanctuary along the coast of central California would likely result in a minimal increase in the number of requests for ONMS general permits, special use permits, certifications, and authorizations because this action proposes to add those approval types for this sanctuary. A large increase in the number of permit requests would require a change to the reporting burden certified for OMB control number 0648-0141. While not expected, if such permit requests do increase, a revision to this control number for the processing of permits would be requested.
In the most recent Information Collection Request revision and approval for national marine sanctuary permits (dated November 30, 2021), NOAA reported approximately 424 national marine sanctuary permitting actions each year, including applications for all types of ONMS permits, requests for permit
NOAA determined that these regulations do not necessitate a modification to its information collection approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. NOAA solicited comments on this determination in the proposed rule, and no public comments were received. NOAA is also requesting a revision and extension of its approved information collection request, outside of this rulemaking, for national marine sanctuary permits to include the additional estimated permit numbers, which will apply to CHNMS.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 306108) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to the undertaking. “Historic property” means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and material remains that are related to and located within such properties, including properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indigenous nation or Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. 36 CFR 800.16(l).
The regulations implementing section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR part 800) establish a process requiring Federal agencies to: (i) determine whether the undertaking is a type of activity that could affect historic properties, (ii) identify historic properties in the area of potential effects, (iii) assess potential adverse effects, and (iv) resolve adverse effects. The regulations require that Federal agencies consult with States, Tribes, and other interested parties when making their effect determinations.
NOAA has determined that the designation of a national marine sanctuary and related rulemaking for sanctuary-specific regulations meet the definition of an undertaking as defined at § 800.16(y).
In fulfilling its responsibilities under section 106 of the NHPA, NOAA sought to identify potential consulting parties and sought public input on the identification of historic properties within the proposed area of potential effect through its 2023 notice of proposed rulemaking. NOAA identified consulting parties, in addition to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and assessed the effects of the undertaking on historic properties in consultations with those parties.
In August 2023, NOAA initiated NHPA Section 106 consultation with the federally recognized Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. In addition, NOAA also sent letters inviting eleven non-federally recognized Tribes, Indigenous groups, and culture-serving organizations to engage in consultation under NHPA Section 106. Six interested parties accepted NOAA's invitation to discuss the consultation, and to address other questions related to the designation, and meetings were conducted in October and November of 2023. In August 2024, NOAA shared draft findings with all consulting parties to invite their views on NOAA's identification of historic properties and finding of no historic properties affected. Subsequently, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(l), NOAA issued a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for this undertaking, which is available in Appendix E of the final EIS, for a 30-day public inspection and consulting party review period. NOAA received no objections to the Finding and consultation was accordingly concluded.
The Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004 (SMCA; Pub. L. 108-375, Title XIV, sections 1401 to 1408; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) preserves and protects from unauthorized disturbance all sunken military craft that are owned by the United States Government, as well as foreign sunken military craft that lie within United States waters, as defined in the SMCA. Thousands of U.S. sunken military craft lie in waters around the world, many accessible to looters, treasure hunters, and others who may cause damage to them. These craft, and their associated contents, represent a collection of non-renewable and significant historical resources that often serve as maritime graves, carry unexploded ordnance, and contain oil and other hazardous materials. By protecting sunken military craft, the SMCA helps reduce the potential for irreversible harm to these nationally important historical and cultural resources.
There are seven known U.S. Navy destroyers that ran aground and sunk near Point Honda in 1923 within CHNMS. CHNMS may also include sunken military craft that have yet to be discovered. Sunken military craft fall under the jurisdiction of a number of Federal agencies such as the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. The USCGC
The Secretaries of the various military branches, including the Department of the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, in the case of a Coast Guard vessel, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, administer the SMCA. The Secretary concerned is solely responsible for authorizing disturbance of sunken military craft under the SMCA, specifically for archaeological, historical, or educational purposes, and will consult with NOAA when considering permitting such activities. The Secretary concerned is also responsible for determinations of sunken military craft status and ownership, publicly disclosing the location of sunken military craft, and for determining eligibility and nominating sunken military craft as historic properties to the National Register of Historic Places. Any agreements with foreign sovereigns regarding sunken military craft in U.S waters under the SMCA are negotiated by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Navy, according to authorities vested in each by the SMCA. The Secretary concerned, or his or her designee, and NOAA will ensure coordination and foster collaboration on any research, monitoring, and educational activities pertaining to sunken military craft located within the sanctuary system. The Director will request approval from the Secretary concerned for any terms and conditions of CHNMS authorizations that may involve sunken military craft.
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1456) requires Federal agencies to consult with a State's coastal program on potential Federal agency activities that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. Because the sanctuary lies partially
Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 14096 direct Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of their actions on human health and the environment of communities with environmental justice concerns. Additionally, Federal agencies are directed to to better protect overburdened communities from pollution and environmental harms; strengthen engagement with communities and mobilize Federal agencies to confront existing and legacy barriers and injustices; promote the latest science, data, and research, including on cumulative impacts; increase accountability and transparency in Federal environmental justice policy; and honor and build on the foundation of ongoing environmental justice work. The designation of national marine sanctuaries by NOAA helps to ensure the enhancement of environmental quality for all populations in the United States. The sanctuary designation would not result in disproportionate negative impacts on any communities with environmental justice concerns. In addition, many of the potential impacts from designating the sanctuary would result in long-term or permanent beneficial impacts by protecting sanctuary resources, which may have a positive impact on communities by providing employment and educational opportunities, and potentially result in improved ecosystem services.
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Cultural resources, Historic preservation, Marine protected areas, Marine resources, National marine sanctuaries, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Shipwrecks.
For the reasons set forth above, NOAA is amending 15 CFR part 922 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1431
(a) * * *
(2) To implement the designations of the national marine sanctuaries, for which specific regulations appear in subpart F through subsequent subparts of this part, by regulating activities affecting them, consistent with their respective terms of designation, in order to protect, restore, preserve, manage, and thereby ensure the health, integrity, and continued availability of the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archaeological, and aesthetic resources and qualities of these areas.
Subpart F and subsequent subparts of this part set forth the boundaries for all national marine sanctuaries.
Subpart F and subsequent subparts of this part set forth site-specific regulations applicable to the activities specified therein.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The permit procedures and criteria for all national marine sanctuaries in which the proposed activity is to take place in accordance with relevant site-specific regulations appearing in subpart F and subsequent subparts of this part.
(b) * * *
(7) Native American cultural or ceremonial activities—activities within Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary that will promote or enhance local Native American cultural or ceremonial activities; or will promote or enhance education and training related to local Native American cultural or ceremonial activities.
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Notification must be sent to the Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, to the attention of the relevant Sanctuary Superintendent(s) at the address specified in subparts L through P, subpart R, subpart U, or subpart V of this part.
(a) * * *
(2) An applicant or a holder of a National Marine Sanctuary permit issued pursuant to § 922.30 or pursuant to site-specific regulations appearing in subparts F through V of this part;
Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary covers 4,543 mi
In addition to the definitions found in § 922.11, the following terms are defined for purposes of this subpart:
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) and paragraph (g) of this section, the following activities are prohibited and thus are unlawful for any person to conduct or to cause to be conducted:
(1) Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas, or minerals within the Sanctuary, except for oil and gas production, which includes well abandonment, pursuant to existing leases or lease units in effect on the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]).
(2)(i) Discharging or depositing from within or into the Sanctuary, other than from a cruise ship, any material or other matter, except:
(A) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials, or bait used in or resulting from lawful fishing activities within the Sanctuary, provided that such discharge or deposit is during the conduct of lawful fishing activities within the Sanctuary;
(B) For a vessel less than 300 gross registered tons (GRT), or a vessel 300 GRT or greater without sufficient holding tank capacity to hold sewage while within the Sanctuary, clean effluent generated incidental to vessel use by an operable Type I or II marine sanitation device (U.S. Coast Guard classification) approved in accordance with section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1322. Vessel operators must lock all marine sanitation devices in a manner that prevents discharge or deposit of untreated sewage;
(C) Clean vessel deck wash down, clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, clean bilge water, or anchor wash;
(D) For a vessel less than 300 GRT, or a vessel 300 GRT or greater without sufficient holding capacity to hold graywater while within the Sanctuary, clean graywater as defined by section 312 of the FWPCA;
(E) Vessel engine or generator exhaust;
(F) Beyond 3 nautical miles from shore, sewage and non-clean graywater as defined by section 312 of the FWPCA generated incidental to vessel use by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel without sufficient holding tank capacity and without a Type I or II marine sanitation device; and beyond 12 nautical miles from shore, ammunition, pyrotechnics, or other materials directly related to training for search and rescue and live ammunition activities conducted by U.S. Coast Guard vessels and aircraft;
(G) Dredged material deposited at disposal sites within the Sanctuary authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]); or
(H) Discharges incidental and necessary to oil and gas production within or into reservoirs contained within existing leases or lease units in effect on the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) from Platform Irene or Platform Heritage, including well abandonment.
(ii) Discharging or depositing from within or into the Sanctuary any material or other matter from a cruise ship except clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, vessel engine or generator exhaust, clean bilge water, or anchor wash.
(iii) Discharging or depositing from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary any material or other matter that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality, except material or other matter listed as exceptions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) through (F) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(3) Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the submerged lands of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter on or in the submerged lands of the Sanctuary, except as incidental and necessary to:
(i) Conduct lawful fishing activities or lawful kelp harvesting;
(ii) Anchor a vessel;
(iii) Install or maintain an authorized navigational aid;
(iv) Repair, replace, or rehabilitate an existing dock, pier, breakwater, or jetty;
(v) Conduct maintenance dredging of entrance channels for harbors in existence prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]); or,
(vi) Drill, maintain, or abandon a well necessary for purposes related to oil and gas production pursuant to existing leases or lease units in effect on the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) from Platform Irene or Platform Heritage.
(vii) The exceptions listed in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) through (vi) of this section do not apply in the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone, the boundary of which is defined in appendix B to this subpart.
(4) Moving, removing, or injuring, or attempting to move, remove, or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource; or possessing or attempting to possess a Sanctuary historical resource, except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes. This prohibition does not apply to, moving, removing, or injury resulting incidentally from lawful kelp harvesting or lawful fishing activities.
(5) Taking any marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird within or above the Sanctuary, except as authorized by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361
(6) Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken, moved, or removed from), any marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird, except as authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA, by any regulation promulgated under the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA, or as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes.
(7) Deserting a vessel aground, at anchor, or adrift in the Sanctuary or leaving harmful matter aboard a grounded or deserted vessel in the Sanctuary.
(8) Attracting any white shark within the Sanctuary.
(9)(i) Moving, removing, taking, collecting, catching, harvesting, disturbing, breaking, cutting, or otherwise injuring, or attempting to move, remove, take, collect, catch, harvest, disturb, break, cut, or otherwise injure, any Sanctuary resource located more than 1,500 ft. below the sea surface within the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone, as defined in appendix B to this subpart. This prohibition does not apply to lawful fishing, which is regulated pursuant to 50 CFR part 660.
(ii) Possessing any Sanctuary resource, the source of which is more than 1,500 ft. below the sea surface within the Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone, except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes. This prohibition does not apply to possession of fish resulting from lawful fishing, which is regulated pursuant to 50 CFR part 660.
(10) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into the Sanctuary an introduced species, except striped bass (
(11) Interfering with, obstructing, delaying, or preventing an investigation, search, seizure, or disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the Act or any regulation or permit issued under the Act.
(b) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (7) and (9) of this section do not apply to an activity necessary to respond to an emergency threatening life, property, or the environment.
(c)(1) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (7) and (9) and (10) of this section do not apply to existing activities carried out or approved by the Department of Defense that were conducted prior to the effective date of this designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]), as specifically identified in section 4.9 or appendix I to the final environmental impact statement for Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary (for availability, see
(2) In the event of threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality resulting from an untoward incident, including but not limited to spills and groundings caused by the Department of Defense, the Department of Defense shall promptly coordinate with the Director for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to respond to and mitigate the harm and, if practicable, restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality.
(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section do not apply to any activity conducted under and in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms, and conditions of a National Marine Sanctuary general permit issued pursuant to subpart D of this part and § 922.233, or a special use permit issued pursuant to subpart D of this part.
(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section, and paragraph (a)(10) of this section regarding any introduced species of shellfish that NOAA and the State of California have determined is non-invasive and will not cause significant adverse effects to Sanctuary resources or qualities, and that is cultivated in State waters as part of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, do not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) and issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant complies with § 922.36, the Director notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that the Director does not object to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and conditions the Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Amendments, renewals, and extensions of authorizations in existence on the effective date of designation constitute authorizations issued after the effective date of Sanctuary designation.
(f)(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, in no event may the Director issue a National Marine Sanctuary general permit under subpart D of this part and § 922.233, or an ONMS authorization or special use permit under subpart D of this part authorizing, or otherwise approve:
(i) The exploration for, development, or production of oil, gas, or minerals within the Sanctuary;
(ii) The discharge of untreated or primary-treated sewage within the Sanctuary (except by certification, pursuant to §§ 922.10 and 922.234, of valid authorizations in existence prior to the effective date of designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) and issued by other authorities of competent jurisdiction); or
(iii) The disposal of dredged material within the Sanctuary other than at sites authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to the effective date of designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]). For the purposes of this subpart, the disposal of dredged material does not include the beneficial use of dredged material, as defined at § 922.231, related to dredging activity at Port San Luis.
(2) Any purported authorizations issued by other authorities within the Sanctuary shall be invalid.
(g) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by paragraphs (a)(2) through (10) of this section within the Sanctuary
(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by § 922.232(a)(2) through (9), if such activity is specifically authorized by, and conducted in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms, and conditions of, a sanctuary general permit issued under this section and subpart D of this part.
(b) Applications for permits should be addressed to the West Coast Regional Office, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 100F, Monterey, CA 93940.
(a) To obtain a certification of an activity that is specifically authorized by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval, other authorization or right of subsistence use or access (hereafter in this subsection “permit or right”) in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) and within the sanctuary designated area, pursuant to §§ 922.10 and 922.232(g), the holder of such permit or right shall:
(1) Notify the Director, in writing, within 120 days of the effective date of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) of the existence and location of such permit or right and requests certification of such permit or right; and
(2) Comply with any terms and conditions on the exercise of such permit or right imposed as a condition of certification, by the Director, to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.
(3) Address any requests for certifications to: West Coast Regional Office, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 100F, Monterey, CA 93940, or send by electronic means as defined in the instructions for the ONMS permit application. A copy of the permit or right must accompany the request.
(b) A holder requesting certification of a permit or right described in § 922.232(g) may continue to conduct the activity without being in violation of Sanctuary prohibitions pending the Director's review of and decision regarding the holder's certification request, provided the holder is otherwise in compliance with this section.
(c) The Director may request additional information from the holder requesting certification as the Director deems reasonably necessary to condition appropriately the exercise of the certified permit or right to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. The Director must receive the information requested within 45 days of the date of the Director's request for information. Failure to provide the requested information within this time frame may be grounds for denial by the Director of the certification request.
(d) In considering whether to impose appropriate conditions when issuing a certification, the Director may seek and consider the views of any other person or entity.
(e) Upon completion of review of the permit or right and information received with respect thereto, the Director shall communicate, in writing, any decision to impose appropriate conditions on a certification request or any action taken with respect to any certification made under this section, in writing, to both the holder of the certified permit, or right, and the issuing agency, and shall set forth the reason(s) for the decision or action taken.
(f) The Director may amend, suspend, or revoke any certification issued under this section whenever continued operation would otherwise be inconsistent with any terms or conditions of the certification, or whenever the underlying permit or right on which the certification was issued has been amended, suspended or revoked. Any such action shall be forwarded in writing to both the certification holder and the agency that issued the underlying permit or right, and shall set forth reason(s) for the action taken.
(g) The holder may appeal any action conditioning a certification, or after issuance of a certification, amending, suspending, or revoking any certification in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 922.37.
(h) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this section may be extended by the Director for good cause.
(i) It is unlawful for any person to violate any terms and conditions in a certification issued under this section.
(a)
(2) The MOA would specify how the process of § 922.36 in subpart D will be administered within State waters within the sanctuary in coordination with State permit and lease programs as administered by the California Fish and Game Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Coastal Commission.
(b)
The northern boundary of the sanctuary begins at Point 1 approximately 36 nautical miles (41 statute miles) WSW of Point Buchon. From Point 1 the sanctuary boundary continues east to Point 2 and then north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline as defined by the mean high water (MHW) tidal datum approximately 2 nautical miles (2.3 statute miles) southeast of the entrance to the harbor at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. From this intersection the sanctuary boundary follows the shoreline southeast past Point San Luis until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5 on the southern end of the southwest breakwater of Port San Luis in San Luis Obispo Bay. From this intersection the sanctuary boundary continues northeast towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline at Fossil Point on the northeast side of Port San Luis. From this intersection the sanctuary boundary follows the shoreline southeast past Pismo Beach and then south past Point Sal and around Point Arguello until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7 on the eastern end of the breakwater just southeast of the
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
Coordinates listed in this table are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.