I. Authority
II. Residential Clothes Washers Direct Final Rule
A. Background
III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule
A. General Comments
B. Authority To Regulate Water Use
C. Anti-Backsliding
D. Economic Justification
E. Unavailability of Performance Characteristics
F. Stakeholder Representation
G. Responses to Previous Stakeholder Comments
H. Formal Rulemaking
I. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure Introductory Notes
IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
V. Conclusion
I. Authority The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”), that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA. The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. ( Id. ) After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and the direct final rule remains effective. Although not required under EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE typically publishes a summary of the comments Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484066 received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments. II. Residential Clothes Washers Direct Final Rule A. Background In a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers (“RCWs”) manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. 77 FR 32308. 2 These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1). The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable integrated modified energy factor (“IMEF”), measured in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (“ft 3 /kWh/cycle”), and maximum allowable integrated water factor (“IWF”), measured in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (“gal/cycle/ft 3 ”), as measured according to the test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (“appendix J2”). 2 DOE published a confirmation of effective date and compliance date for the direct final rule on October 1, 2012. 77 FR 59719. In a final rule published on June 1, 2022 (“June 2022 TP Final Rule”), DOE finalized a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (“appendix J”), which defines new energy efficiency metrics: an energy efficiency ratio (“EER”) and a water efficiency ratio (“WER”). 3 87 FR 33316, 33319. For both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient performance. 3 EER is defined as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such energy consumption expressed as the sum of (1) the machine electrical energy consumption, (2) the hot water energy consumption, (3) the energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load, and (4) the combined low-power mode energy consumption. 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J section 1. WER is defined as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons. Id. On March 3, 2023, DOE published a NOPR (“March 2023 NOPR”) proposing to establish amended standards for RCWs, defined in terms of the EER and WER metrics as measured according to appendix J. 88 FR 13520. On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (“Joint Agreement”) recommending standards for RCWs that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. 4 In addition to the recommended standards for RCWs, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products. 5 The amended standard levels recommended in the Joint Agreement for RCWs are presented in Table II.1, expressed in terms of the EER and WER metrics as measured according to the newly established test procedure contained in appendix J. Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket for this rulemaking. 6 4 The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation. 5 The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for six covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; RCWs; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products. 6 The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505. Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) 3.79 0.29 March 1, 2028. Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) 4.27 0.57 Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) 5.02 0.71 Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) 5.52 0.77 Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 2.12 0.27Product class | Minimum energy efficiency ratio (lb/kWh/cycle) | Minimum water efficiency ratio (lb/gal/cycle) | Compliance date |
---|---|---|---|
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) | 3.79 | 0.29 | March 1, 2028. |
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) | 4.27 | 0.57 | |
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) | 5.02 | 0.71 | |
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) | 5.52 | 0.77 | |
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers | 2.12 | 0.27 |
[Compliance starting March 1, 2028] | ||
Product class | Minimum energy efficiency ratio (lb/kWh/cycle) | Minimum water efficiency ratio (lb/gal/cycle) |
---|---|---|
Automatic Clothes Washers: | ||
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) | 3.79 | 0.29 |
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) 1 | 4.27 | 0.57 |
Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft 3 capacity) 2 | 5.02 | 0.71 |
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3 | 5.52 | 0.77 |
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers | 2.12 | 0.27 |
1 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to top-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less than 30 minutes. | ||
2 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft 3 and less than 3.0 ft 3 with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes. | ||
3 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to front-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less than 45 minutes. |
Commenter(s) | Abbreviation | Comment No. in the Docket | Commenter type |
---|---|---|---|
The Attorneys General of the States of Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia | AGs of FL et al | 526 | State Government Officials. |
The Attorney General of the State of Montana | AG of MT | 529 | State Government Official. |
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers | AHAM | 525 | Trade Association. |
Anonymous | Anonymous | 530 | Individual. |
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance for Water Efficiency, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company | ASAP et al | 527 | Advocacy Organizations. |
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and California Energy Commission | NYSERDA and CEC | 519 | State Agencies. |
Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Green Energy Consumers Alliance, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group | CFA et al | 528 | Advocacy Organizations. |
Rebekah Finn | Finn | 524 | Individual. |
Martina Gómez de la Torre | Gómez de la Torre | 516 | Individual. |
Emma Leamy | Leamy | 518 | Individual. |
Representative Stephanie Bice | Rep. Bice | 517 | Federal Government Official. |
Bill Word and David Daquin | Word and Daquin | * 521, 522 | Individual. |
* Comments No. 521 and 522 are identical. DOE cites comment No. 521 in this document. |
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE received several comments on its determination of economic justification under the statutory criteria. Rep. Bice asserted that increased standards will lead to increased production costs for manufacturers, which will subsequently lead to increased costs to consumers. Rep. Bice added that the adopted standards will limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and impose onerous regulations on American manufacturers, many of whom are small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 517 at p. 1) The AGs of FL et al. commented that while they acknowledge that DOE has reduced the stringency as compared to the previously proposed standards, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule does not weigh heavily enough the appliance cost increase that the rule will cause and that will be borne by American consumers. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 1) DOE considered the impacts to manufacturers, including the potential increase in manufacturing costs, in the manufacturing impact analysis in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 19026, 19071-19077, 19092-19098. At the adopted standard levels, DOE's data demonstrate no lessening of consumer choice, product utility, or performance would occur. DOE estimates that approximately 49 percent of annual shipments currently meet the adopted standard levels. Id. at 89 FR 19119. In the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, the life-cycle cost (“LCC”) analysis calculated the distribution of impacts across a nationally representative sample of US households. As demonstrated by the LCC analysis, at the adopted standard, the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes and the fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is about 12 percent. Id. Therefore, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule did consider the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard (42 U.S.C. 4296(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)), and DOE has determined that the comments provided by the AGs of FL et al. and Rep. Bice do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. AHAM commented that the recommended standards are economically justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and will not result in lessening of utility, reliability, performance or availability of RCWs considered under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). AHAM commented that under the standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, only 2 percent of consumers would experience a net cost. AHAM commented that the standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule also decrease the number of low-income consumers that could experience a net cost. In addition, AHAM noted that manufacturer costs to comply with the final standard are less under the March 2024 Direct Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484070 than under the previously proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 6) ASAP et al. commented that the amended standards will particularly benefit low-income consumers, who spend three times more of their income on energy costs compared to non-low-income households. ASAP et al. commented that the standards will also benefit renters, whose landlords might not otherwise purchase energy-saving RCWs. (ASAP et al., No. 527 at p. 2) CFA et al. commented that the standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will reduce energy use by about 10 percent relative to the least-efficient RCW sold today while also cutting water waste, and for a household replacing an inefficient top-loading RCW, the new standards will provide annual utility bill savings of $23 on average. CFA et al. further noted that the average PBP for low-income households for top-loading and front-loading RCWs are 3.5 years and 0.7 years, respectively. (CFA et al., No. 528 at p. 1) The AG of MT stated that DOE's reliance on the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (“ AEO2023” ) for pricing trends is faulty due to federal rulemakings being issued that will force existing generating capacity offline, spike electricity demand, and decrease fossil fuel supply, as illustrated with several documents attached to the comment. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 5) DOE contends that AEO2023 remains the best available source for projections of future energy price trends based on adopted energy policies. DOE also performed sensitivity analyses using alternate AEO2023 growth scenarios with low and high energy prices relative to the reference scenario in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule to assess the impact of alternative energy price projections. 89 FR 19026, 19059. The results of these scenarios are available in appendix 10D of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule Technical Support Document (“TSD”) and show that consumers of residential clothes washers would still experience positive cumulative consumer net present value (“NPV”) even when considering lower and higher energy prices. Therefore, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule did take into account energy price variability in its analysis, and DOE has determined that the comment provided by the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. The AG of MT stated that DOE acknowledges but disregards consumer preference and assumes consumers are ignorant. The AG of MT attached studies demonstrating consumer preference for product lifetime over energy consumption, and the AG of MT commented that these longer-life appliances may use less energy over the entire life cycle and be a lower cost to the consumer. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 2) DOE did not disregard consumer preference but rather noted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off up-front costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. 89 FR 19026, 19113. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements, as the AG of MT alleged in their comment. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant trade-offs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Id. at 89 FR 19114 Having less-than-perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher-than-expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings. Id. Potential changes in the benefits and costs associated with a standard due to changes in consumer purchase decisions were included in the analysis for the March 2024 Direct Final Rule in two ways. Id. First, if consumers forgo the purchase of a product in the standards case, as estimated based on price elasticity related to empirical data on appliances, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the manufacturer impact analysis. Id. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. Further, the AG of MT stated that the reliability of products affected by the rulemaking will decrease due to complexity increases, which the commenters asserted is supported by engineering facts illustrated in a document attached to their comment, yet DOE does not address this issue. The AG of MT also commented that complexity increases will lead to less economic viability of repair, which is not reflected in DOE's assumption that the rulemaking will have no impact on lifespan. The AG of MT commented that DOE disregards the fact that reliability can be increased by lightening the electrical, mechanical, thermal, and other conditions of operation of the components, which tends to decrease energy efficiency but results in less repair downtime and longer times before replacement and, therefore, decreased costs, as illustrated in attached documents. (AG of MT, No. 529 at pp. 3-5) AHAM commented that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule addresses AHAM's key concerns with the March 2023 NOPR. AHAM added that the technology options DOE identified for meeting the standard levels in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule are established technologies used in the market today and do not negatively impact product reliability. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 7) ASAP et al. commented that they did not expect the standards in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule to have any impact on product reliability because the amended standards can be met with simple design changes that have already been incorporated in many models on the market today. ASAP et al. presented a figure of historical data from EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“RECS”) showing that the distribution of RCW age remained largely unchanged between 2005 and 2020 as RCW efficiency improved. (ASAP et al., No. 527 at pp. 4-5) In contrast to the comment from the AG of MT and as noted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into consideration the cost of repair and included higher repair costs for more efficient products when supported by available data. See 89 FR 19026, 19059. Hence, notwithstanding theoretical conjecture that higher-efficiency products may have poor reliability based on simplified textbook models, no real-world evidence or data related to the technologies used at the adopted standard levels can be found clearly supporting such a correlation. The AG of MT did not specify how the attached documents on network node analysis and reliability theory correspond to the technologies used at the adopted standard levels for RCWs. In the absence of data specific to the technologies used in RCWs, DOE has no practical basis to model the theoretical concern from the Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484071 AG of MT at the adopted standard levels. DOE further notes that the lifetime distribution used in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule is based on actual lifetime values in the field, which were developed from historical shipments data and surveys. DOE did not find that the average lifetime for RCWs has changed. 89 FR 19026, 19060. DOE is unaware of data that suggests a different lifetime associated with the technology options considered in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, and no such data was provided by stakeholders. In response to the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, AHAM commented that the adopted standard will not impact the reliability of products, and hence lifetime of the product, at the adopted level, and it further stated that the standard levels are achievable by technology readily available on the market. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 6) As there is no data to suggest different lifetime distributions for products at the adopted standards level, the comment from the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. As discussed in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into account product reliability, lifetimes, and cost of repair when considering the LCC of more efficient products when supported by available data. See 89 FR 19026, 19060. Therefore, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule did take into account consumer purchase decisions in its analysis, and DOE has determined that the comment provided by the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. The AG of MT stated their belief that greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and climate change impacts should not be part of EPCA rulemakings, but given their inclusion, DOE must consider them throughout the entire life cycle of the product, including manufacturing and potential reductions in lifespan due to increased complexity. The AG of MT commented that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule failed to adequately address these full life cycle impacts. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 6) As previously stated in section III.C of this document, the comment from the AG of MT points to a statement made to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy to indicate that 40 to 60 percent of the carbon footprint for many consumer products can be attributed to the supply chain. 10 However, the McKinsey report, which is the primary source for the statement made to the U.S. Subcommittee on Energy, is only referring to the manufacturing company's energy and carbon footprint that can reside upstream in its supply chain and does not include the energy and emissions associated with the usage phase of the appliance life cycle, which represents more than 90 percent of the total for large appliances. 11 As such, the energy and carbon footprint associated with supply chain likely accounts for approximately 4 to 6 percent of the overall carbon footprint of a product. Furthermore, there is no data suggesting that the supply chain carbon footprint would be different between baseline units and units that meet the adopted standard. In the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted for the environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate change, as they are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation under EPCA. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 89 FR 19026, 19110-19113. This analysis focused on the estimated reduced emissions expected to result during the lifetime of RCWs shipped during the projection period. Id 10 See www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/3D26FA56-F102-9E9F-BEA4-52BB0085B19A. 11 Gonzalez, A., A. Chase, and N. Horowitz. 2012. “What We Know and Don't Know about Embodied Energy and Greenhouse Gases for Electronics, Appliances, and Light Bulbs.” Energy Solutions and Natural Resources Defense Council. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. The AG of MT stated that the Interagency Working Group's (“IWG's”) SC-GHG based on global impacts is inconsistent with EPCA's requirements for standards to consider economic implications to U.S. consumers. The AG of MT claimed that DOE erroneously appears to assume that all the benefits accrue to U.S. citizens, despite using global values. The AG of MT cited the case of Louisiana v. Biden to demonstrate questions related to the accuracy of the IWG's SC-GHG estimates. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 6) DOE reiterates its view that the environmental and public health benefits associated with more efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate change, are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, Executive Order 13563, which was reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that each agency must, among other things, “select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).” Regarding the use of global SC-GHG values, many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and residents are better reflected by global measures of SC-GHG. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. The AG of MT stated the monetized GHG benefits largely accrue centuries in the future, well beyond the rulemaking analysis period. The AG of MT also stated that DOE improperly mixed discount rates in its cost-benefit analysis. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 6) DOE's March 2024 Direct Final Rule analysis considers the costs and benefits associated with 30 years of shipments of a covered product. Because a portion of products shipped within this 30-year period continue to operate beyond 30 years, DOE accounts for energy cost savings and reductions in emissions until all products shipped within the 30-year period are retired. 89 FR 19026, 19073. In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, which remain in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change for many decades, the benefits of reductions in emissions likewise occur over a lengthy period; to not include such benefits would be inappropriate. Id. With regards to discount rates used, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context and recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates. Regarding mixing discount rates, DOE consulted the National Academies' 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can “be combined in Regulatory Impact Analyses (“RIAs”) with other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount rates.” Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484072 The National Academies reviewed several options, including “presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-GHG] estimates.” 89 FR 19026, 19080. 12 12 Following the issuance of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE issued a rulemaking document in an unrelated matter in which it preliminarily determined that new, updated SC-GHG estimates promulgated in 2023 by EPA (2023 SC-GHG estimates) represent a significant improvement in estimating SC-GHG. See 89 FR 59692, 59700-59701. DOE preliminarily determined that the updated 2023 SC-GHG estimates reflect the best available scientific and analytical evidence and methodologies, are accordingly the most appropriate for DOE analyses, and best facilitate sound decision-making by substantially improving the transparency of the estimates and representations of uncertainty inherent in such estimates. Id. DOE welcomed comment on that preliminary determination. Id. Because it issued the March 2024 Direct Final Rule prior to making that preliminary determination, DOE estimated the climate benefits of the standards adopted in this rule using the IWG's SC-GHG estimates. As noted in the text, DOE's decision to adopt the March 2024 Direct Final Rule's standards did not depend on the cost of greenhouse gasses; nor would the decision change based on a revised estimate of the cost of greenhouse gasses. E. Unavailability of Performance Characteristics EPCA specifies the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) The AGs of FL et al. stated that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule does not account for the lower performance of RCWs that AHAM identified through members' independent testing of RCWs at the new standard level. 13 (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 3) The AGs of FL et al. asserted that the standards in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will leave consumers struggling with washers that take longer to clean clothes. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 1) 13 DOE notes that the AHAM members' testing referred to by the AGs of FL et al. in this statement reflected testing at the standard levels proposed in the March 2023 NOPR ( i.e., not the “new standard level” adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule). Rep. Bice asserted that the adopted standards will limit consumer choice. (Rep. Bice, No. 517 at p. 1) ASAP et al. commented that the amended standards will improve washing performance for top-loading RCWs and will not impact other performance attributes. ASAP et al. added that RCWs that already meet the new standards provide improved washing performance relative to less-efficient models, as demonstrated by Consumer Reports studies. (ASAP et al., No. 527 at pp. 2-3) ASAP et al. also commented that the standards in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule can be met across the entire capacity range of top-loading RCWs, so indicating that the standards will not preclude the availability of smaller-capacity RCWs. ( Id. at p. 4) ASAP et al. noted that the amended standards will not require an increase in cycle time. ASAP et al. further commented that there is no evidence that the frequency of running multiple RCW cycles has increased over time or will increase in the future as a result of the amended standards. ( Id. at pp. 3-4) AHAM commented that it supported the energy conservation standards in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule because DOE's data demonstrate, and industry experience confirms that RCWs at the amended standard level can maintain good cleaning performance and that the amended standards do not preclude the ability to provide high wash temperatures. AHAM further commented that there is no significant difference in cycle time between RCWs in its data set that are less efficient than the amended standards and those that just meet the standard levels. Thus, AHAM commented that it supported the energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 3) AHAM commented that the energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will not result in significant lessening of utility, reliability, performance, or availability of the covered products as prohibited under the so-called “safe harbor” exception of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(IV). ( Id. at p. 6) AHAM further noted that the energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule are equivalent to current ENERGY STAR levels for many product classes, and that there are a wide range of products meeting the adopted standards currently available on the market. AHAM therefore does not anticipate that the energy conservation standards recommended in the Joint Agreement and established in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will negatively affect features or performance, including cycle time. ( Id. at p. 5) NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their support for the recommendations in the Joint Agreement and echoed the clarification regarding “short cycle” products made in the February 15, 2024 letter to DOE by ASAP and AHAM. This clarification specified that the recommendations in the Joint Agreement did not address “short cycle” products for clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers as so-called “short cycle” product classes did not exist at the time the recommendations were submitted to DOE and do not exist at this time. 14 This letter also highlighted that the signatories to the Joint Agreement do not anticipate that amended standards will negatively affect features or performance, including cycle time. (NYSERDA and CEC, No. 519 at p. 1) 14 ASAP and AHAM letter available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509. DOE determined that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule would not result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the same as those currently available in the United States. 89 FR 19026, 19108-19109. Therefore, DOE has determined that the comments provided by Rep. Bice and the AGs of FL et al. do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. F. Stakeholder Representation Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by DOE, may submit a joint recommendation to DOE for new or amended energy conservation standards. The AGs of FL et al. questioned the expertise and relevancy of several advocacy groups who contributed to the Joint Agreement ( i.e., the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Earthjustice, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the National Consumer Law Center). The AGs of FL et al. asserted that none of the advocacy groups has expertise in setting energy efficiency standards for RCWs. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at pp. 4-5) The AGs of FL et al. commented that there were several other groups that commented on the March 2023 NOPR but did not appear in the joint statement. The AGs of FL et al. stated that the joint agreement did not include the National Apartment Association (“NAA”) and the National Multifamily Housing Council (“NMHC”). NAA and NMHC previously raised concerns about the effects of the rulemaking on mass-appliance purchases, which will disproportionately affect low-income individuals. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at pp. 5-6) Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484073 The AGs of FL et al. commented that while Massachusetts, New York, and California supported the standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, 21 States cautioned DOE about the March 2024 Direct Final Rule's effects on consumer welfare; the AGs of FL et al. asserted that EPCA requires DOE to receive the concurrence of States across the ideological spectrum in order to proceed with a direct final rule rather than acknowledge only the few opinions in favor without receiving the support of a majority of States. The AGs of FL et al. commented that many States also previously raised legal concerns with DOE's previously proposed rule, which they stated were not resolved in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. The AGs of FL et al. commented that States have a direct interest in protecting consumers and are also directly affected by the rule because many State entities purchase clothes washers. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 6) The AG of MT agreed with the AGs of FL et al.' s concerns over the participants in the Joint Agreement underlying the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, along with their concerns that the group does not comply with EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 1) The AGs of FL et al. stated one concern was that DOE engaged in “administrative arm-twisting” and indicated that AHAM's change of approach from opposing to supporting the energy efficiency standards in question reflects a subtle example of the effect of DOE's arm-twisting on AHAM. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 4) AHAM commented that the stakeholders who submitted the Joint Agreement are representative of a wide range of expert and relevant points of view—including manufacturers of various sizes representing nearly 100 percent of the market for consumer clothes dryers; consumer, environmental, and efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and several States that participated in the negotiation discussions and filed comments in support of the agreement. AHAM concluded that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule benefits both the manufacturers and consumers that these organizations represent. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 5) In response to the comments regarding whether the Joint Agreement was submitted by persons fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) states that if the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) are met, the Secretary may issue a final rule that establishes an energy conservation standard “[o]n receipt of a statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)) As stated in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that this requirement was met. 89 FR 11434, 19038. The Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 12 manufacturers of the subject covered products—RCWs. Id. The Joint Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility company. Id. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts ( see comment No. 506). Id. DOE also received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, San Diego Gas and Electric, and the electric utility, Southern California Edison ( see comment No. 507). Id. Representatives from each of the relevant points of view described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) supported the Joint Agreement. DOE has ample authority to accept a joint statement in these circumstances. EPCA does not require that the Joint Agreement be representative of every point of view. Nor does it require that a statement be submitted by all interested persons. Rather, it requires a statement from a sufficient number and diversity of “interested persons” such that the statement is “fairly representative of relevant points of view.” The Joint Agreement presented here is such a statement, as the Secretary determined. Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, EPCA does not include any requirement that “relevant points of view” must include ideologically opposed points of view. Rather, EPCA ensures a diversity of opinions and interests by requiring that parties that provide a joint agreement must be fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) Moreover, regardless of whether amended energy conservation standards are recommended as part of a joint agreement or proposed by DOE, the standards have to satisfy the same criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Thus, once DOE has determined that a joint agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE then determines whether the joint agreement satisfies the relevant statutory criteria. As a result, in evaluating whether comments provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing a direct final rule, it is the substance of the comments, not the number of stakeholders that submit statements in favor of, or opposed to, the joint agreement, that determines whether a rule should be withdrawn. DOE also finds the contention that the Joint Agreement parties are not competent to present a statement for the purposes of section 6295(p) meritless. Contrary to the characterizations by the AGs of FL et al., the parties to the Joint Agreement have an established historical record of participation in DOE rulemakings and have submitted detailed comments in the past that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the technical, legal, and economic aspects of appliance standards rulemakings, including factors affecting specific groups such as low-income households. In a follow-up letter from the parties to the Joint Agreement, each organization provided a brief description of its background: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is a nonprofit research organization and its independent analysis advances investments, programs, and behaviors that use energy more effectively and help build an equitable clean energy future. Alliance for Water Efficiency is a nonprofit dedicated to efficiency and sustainable use of water that provides a forum for collaboration around policy, information sharing, research, education, and stakeholder engagement. ASAP organizes and leads a broad-based coalition effort that works to advance new appliance, equipment, and lighting standards that cut emissions that contribute to climate change and other environmental and public health harms, save water, and reduce economic and environmental burdens for low- and moderate-income households. AHAM represents more than 150 member companies that manufacture 90 percent of the major portable and floor care appliances shipped for sale in the United States. CFA is an association of more than 250 non-profit consumer and cooperative groups that advances the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education. Consumer Reports is a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit member organization that empowers and informs consumers, incentivizes corporations to act responsibly, and helps policymakers prioritize the rights and interests of consumers in order to shape a truly Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484074 consumer-driven marketplace. Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization advocating to advance clean energy and combat climate change. National Consumer Law Center supports consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people in the United States through its expertise in policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training. National Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with expertise from lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is a collaboration of 140 utilities and efficiency organizations working together to advance energy efficiency in the Northwest on behalf of more than 13 million consumers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company represents one of the largest combined gas and electric utilities in the Western United States, serving over 16 million customers across northern and central California. 15 15 This document is available in the docket: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0531. Finally, DOE notes that it had no role in requesting that the parties to the Joint Agreement submit the Joint Agreement or in negotiating the terms of the Joint Agreement. As noted in the Joint Agreement itself, the parties negotiated and accepted the agreement based on the totality of the agreement. DOE's participation was limited to evaluating the joint submission under the criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). Therefore, DOE reaffirms its determination that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view. G. Responses to Previous Stakeholder Comments The AGs of FL et al. commented that there were many comments made by AHAM, Whirlpool, and GE Appliances in previous rounds of the rulemaking that the AGs of FL et al. found were not adequately addressed in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. For example, the AGs of FL et al. stated that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule does not address Whirlpool's concern that DOE did not conduct a North American integrated supply-chain analysis. The AGs of FL et al. commented that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule neglects to address AHAM's previous concern that RCWs will not be able to maintain certain features and functionalities and households at or near the poverty line would be negatively affected by having to purchase new RCWs. The AGs of FL et al. commented that although AHAM later authored a joint agreement in favor of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not adequately address the concerns listed in AHAM's earlier comment and therefore does not assuage concerns that the new energy efficiency standards will raise prices for RCWs with disproportionate harm to low-income households. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at pp. 2-4) Regarding the comments from the AGs of FL et al. that DOE did not respond in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule to the comments submitted by signatories to the Joint Agreement and other stakeholders in response to the March 2023 NOPR, DOE notes that the commenters misunderstand DOE's direct final rule authority under EPCA. As discussed in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE was already conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for RCWs when the Joint Agreement was submitted. 89 FR 19026, 19036. After receiving the Joint Agreement, DOE initiated a separate rulemaking action and subsequently issued the March 2024 Direct Final Rule after determining that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement were compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. The March 2024 Direct Final Rule is a separate rulemaking, conducted under a different statutory authority from DOE's prior rulemaking in the March 2023 NOPR, and DOE has no obligation to consider comments submitted in response to that prior rulemaking in a different rulemaking. Further, both the efficiency levels and compliance periods proposed in the March 2023 NOPR are different from those adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. Even though DOE was not required to consider comments from the March 2023 NOPR, DOE did in fact consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained through the March 2023 NOPR. This included the issues that the AGs of FL et al. asserted DOE ignored in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. In response to concerns about manufacturer supply chain, DOE noted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule that six of the nine OEMs with top-loading standard-size products offer models that meet the adopted standard level, while for the front-loading standard size RCWs, approximately 92 percent of shipments already meet the adopted standard level. 89 FR 19026, 19093. Given that a significant portion of the market already meets or exceeds the adopted standard, it is very unlikely that the adopted standard will impact the RCW product supply chain. Additionally, in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE specifically addressed the ability of RCWs to maintain certain features and functionalities. 89 FR 19026, 19100. For example, DOE determined that the adopted standards would not require substantive reduction in hot water temperature on the hottest temperature selection in the Normal cycle. The adopted standards would not preclude the ability to provide wash temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, would not preclude the ability to provide total cleaning scores for top-loading units equally as high as the highest scores currently achieved by units at lower efficiency levels, and would not preclude the ability to provide mechanical action score comparable to cores for units at lower efficiency levels, Id. at 89 FR 19102-19103. AHAM commented that DOE satisfactorily responded to AHAM's comments and concerns regarding clothes washer performance and safety concerns, baseline level definition, product class definitions, the economic value of water, consideration of low-income consumers, consideration of well and septic system users, test cloth availability, and harmonization of compliance dates for other laundry products. AHAM stated that the compliance timeline reduces the cumulative regulatory burden of this rulemaking and those for other major appliances. AHAM further commented that the energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule maintain important consumer features and utilities. AHAM commented that it agrees with DOE that the standard levels in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule can maintain good cleaning performance and do not preclude the ability to provide high wash temperatures. (AHAM, No. 525 at pp. 3-8) ASAP et al. also commented that DOE's testing found that the standards finalized in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule can be achieved with wash temperatures and “wear and tear” scores comparable to or better than those of lower-efficiency units. (ASAP et al., No. 527 at p. 3) In the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered the impact on low-income households by performing a LCC subgroup analysis for low-income households. 89 FR 19026, 19067-19071. Notably, consistent with the Joint Agreement, in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule DOE adopted a lower standard level for top-loading and front-loading standard-size RCWs than the Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484075 level proposed in the March 2023 NOPR. DOE estimated that the adopted standard level would result in 12 percent of low-income households experiencing a net cost due to the standard, compared with 14 percent at the proposed level in the March 2023 NOPR. H. Formal Rulemaking The AGs of FL et al. recommended that before enacting these stringent new standards for RCWs, DOE return to formal rulemaking or, at a minimum, to proceed with informal notice-and-comment rulemaking to allow States and other relevant parties to participate in rulemaking processes that affect nearly every household appliance and also ensure a minimal level of political accountability by giving visibility to internal agency deliberations. The AGs of FL et al. further commented that the lack of a formal process does not allow people the opportunity to comment on rules that touch the lives of nearly all Americans. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at pp. 1, 6-8) The AG of MT similarly recommended DOE halt the rulemaking. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 7) The AG of MT expressed concern about pretext and circumvention of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), regarding DOE's conduct in this rulemaking and in recent litigations. (AG of MT, No. 529 at pp. 1-2) AHAM stated that interested parties have had ample opportunity to comment through multiple stages of rulemaking. AHAM noted that, in fact, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule process provided an extra 110 days for interested parties to review DOE's final rule and submit comments—which met EPCA requirements. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 5) In response, DOE notes that Congress granted DOE the authority to issue energy conservation standards as direct final rules subject to certain conditions and procedural requirements. As discussed in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the adopted energy conservation standards as recommended in the Joint Agreement would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and provided supporting analysis. 89 FR 19026, 19037-19038. Additionally, DOE notes it followed the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) to publish a direct final rule in the Federal Register simultaneously with a NOPR proposing identical standards and allowed 110 days for public comment. See 89 FR 19026. Regarding the comment about formal rulemaking, DOE has met all of its statutory requirements under its direct rule authority, which does not require formal rulemaking. 16 16 DOE notes that outside of its direct rulemaking authority, DOE utilizes informal or legislative rulemaking ( i.e., notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553) when it promulgates rules under EPCA, not formal rulemaking. Finally, regarding the comments about the APA, EPCA mandates the substance and process by which DOE establishes energy conservation standards and develops direct final rules. While the APA provides DOE direction in areas in which EPCA is silent, EPCA is a comprehensive statutory mechanism for the development, implementation, and enforcement of energy conservation standards. I. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure Introductory Notes The test procedures at appendices J and appendix J2 contain introductory notes that specify the dates of applicability for each test procedure. Among other details, these introductory notes currently specify the following: • For RCWs, manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix J2 to determine compliance with the relevant standards at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) as they appeared in January 1, 2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. • For RCWs, manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix J to determine compliance with any amended standards provided in 10 CFR 430.32(g) that are published after January 1, 2022. The March 2024 Direct Final Rule reorganized 10 CFR 430.32(g) by renumbering the currently applicable standards at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) to 430.32(g)(1) and adding the amended standards promulgated by the March 2024 Direct Final Rule at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(2). In this document, DOE updates the introductory notes to both appendix J and appendix J2 to reference 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1) with regard to the currently applicable standards for RCWs and 10 CFR 430.32(g)(2) with regard to the amended standards promulgated by the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with copies of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the March 2024 Direct Final Rule TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document. In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its review, the direct final rule standards for RCWs are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. V. Conclusion In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for amended energy conservation standards for RCWs do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule became effective on July 15, 2024. Compliance with these standards is required on and after March 1, 2028. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses. Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 10, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 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 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484076 the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register . Signed in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2024. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 2. Amend appendix J to subpart B of part 430 by revising the introductory note to read as follows: Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers Note 1 to appendix J to subpart B of part 430: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix J2 to this subpart to determine compliance with the residential clothes washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(1) and the commercial clothes washer standards provided at § 431.156(b). Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this appendix to determine compliance with the residential clothes washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(2) and for any amended commercial clothes washer standards provided at § 431.156 that are published after January 1, 2022. Any representations related to energy or water consumption of residential or commercial clothes washers must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies ( i.e., this appendix or appendix J2 to this subpart) when determining compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use this appendix to certify compliance with the residential clothes washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(2) or any amended standards for commercial clothes washers prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards. * * * * * 3. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 by revising the introductory note to read as follows: Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers Note 1 to appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this appendix to determine compliance with the residential clothes washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(1) and the commercial clothes washer standards provided at § 431.156(b). Manufacturers must use the results of testing under Appendix J to this subpart to determine compliance with the residential clothes washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(2) and for any amended commercial clothes washer standards provided at § 431.156 that are published after January 1, 2022. Any representations related to energy or water consumption of residential or commercial clothes washers must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies ( i.e., appendix J to this subpart or this appendix) when determining compliance with the relevant standard. * * * * * Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Appendix AMay 16, 2024
Ami Grace-Tardy
Assistant General Counsel for
Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Re: Residential Clothes Washers Energy Conservation Standards
DOE Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014
Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:
I am responding to your March 18, 2024 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf. In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers. We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of proposed rulemaking (89 FR 18836), Direct Final Rule (89 FR 19026), and the related Technical Support Documents. We have also reviewed public comments and information provided by industry participants. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. Sincerely,/s/
David G.B. Lawrence,
Policy Director.
[FR Doc. 2024-24154 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-PApril 9, 2024
Ami Grace-Tardy
Assistant General Counsel for
Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Re: Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Energy Conservation Standards
DOE Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005
Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:
I am responding to your February 16, 2024, letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to determine the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf. In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers. We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the direct final rulemaking, the notice of proposed rulemaking (89 FR 11548, February 14, 2024) and the related Technical Support Documents. We have also reviewed public comments and information provided by industry participants. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.Sincerely,
/s/
David G.B. Lawrence,
Policy Director .
[FR Doc. 2024-24158 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-PLabor cost | Parts cost | Cost per product | Cost on U.S. operators |
---|---|---|---|
4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 | $0 | $340 | $2,720 |
2024-10-01 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22746; Docket No. FAA-2024-0233; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-01003-T.
(a) Effective Date This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 25, 2024. (b) Affected ADs None. (c) Applicability This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and A330-941 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0169, dated September 4, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0169). (d) Subject Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire Protection. (e) Unsafe Condition This AD was prompted by a report of a protective cap found still in place on the drain hole of a fire extinguishing pipe, and by further investigations indicating these caps may have remained on other airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address protective caps possibly remaining in place on fire extinguishing pipes installed on the Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484079 affected airplanes. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in accumulation of water and ice in the pipe and, in case of an engine fire, prevent extinguishing that engine fire, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane. (f) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. (g) Requirements Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0169. (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0169 (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0169 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD. (2) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2023-0169. (i) No Reporting Requirement Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0169 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. (j) Additional AD Provisions The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office. (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any material contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC. (k) Additional Information For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone 206-231-3229; email Vladimir.Ulyanov@faa.gov. (l) Material Incorporated by Reference (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0169, dated September 4, 2023. (ii) [Reserved] (3) For EASA AD 2023-0169, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. (5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations, or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. Issued on October 3, 2024. Peter A. White, Deputy Director, Integrated Certificate Management Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2024-23538 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-PI. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action On March 8, 2024 (89 FR 16712), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP. SCAQMD 1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares 01/06/23 05/11/23Local agency | Rule No. | Rule title | Amended | Submitted |
---|---|---|---|---|
SCAQMD | 1118 | Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares | 01/06/23 | 05/11/23 |
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action On April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34178), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP. 11 Exemptions From Rule 10 Permit Requirements 10/13/2022 05/11/2023Rule No. | Rule title | Amended date | Submitted date |
---|---|---|---|
11 | Exemptions From Rule 10 Permit Requirements | 10/13/2022 | 05/11/2023 |
IBOC Station's F(50,10) field strength at the upper or lower first-adjacent station's analog 60 dBµ F(50,50) contour | Maximum permissible FM digital ERP for the respective (upper or lower) sideband |
---|---|
51.2 dBµ and above | −17 dBc. |
50.7 dBµ to 51.1 dBµ | −16 dBc. |
50.3 dBµ to 50.6 dBµ | −15 dBc. |
49.6 dBµ to 50.2 dBµ | −14 dBc. |
49.5 dBµ or less | −13 dBc. |
IBOC station's F(50,10) field strength at the upper or lower first-adjacent station's analog 60 dBµ F(50,50) contour | Maximum permissible FM digital ERP for the respective (upper or lower) sideband |
---|---|
51.2 dBµ and above | −17 dBc. |
50.7 dBµ to 51.1 dBµ | −16 dBc. |
50.3 dBµ to 50.6 dBµ | −15 dBc. |
49.6 dBµ to 50.2 dBµ | −14 dBc. |
49.5 dBµ or less | −13 dBc. |
Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Idaho: Idaho Statesman
Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Nevada: Reno Gazette-Journal
Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Wyoming: Casper Star-Tribune
Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Utah: Salt Lake Tribune
Regional Forester decisions that affect all National Forests in the Intermountain Region: Salt Lake Tribune
Ashley National ForestAshley Forest Supervisor decisions: Vernal Express
District Ranger decisions for Duchesne, Roosevelt: Uintah Basin Standard
Flaming Gorge District Ranger for decisions affecting Wyoming: Rocket Miner
Flaming Gorge and Vernal District Ranger for decisions affecting Utah: Vernal Express
Boise National ForestBoise Forest Supervisor decisions: Idaho Statesman
Cascade District Ranger decisions: The Star-News
Emmett District Ranger decisions: Emmett Messenger Index
District Ranger decisions for Idaho City and Mountain Home Districts: Idaho Statesman
Lowman District Ranger decisions: The Idaho World
Bridger-Teton National ForestBridger-Teton Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: Casper Star-Tribune Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484112
Caribou-Targhee National ForestCaribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Caribou portion: Idaho State Journal
Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Targhee portion: Post Register
District Ranger decisions for Ashton, Dubois, Island Park, Palisades and Teton Basin: Post Register
District Ranger decisions for Montpelier, Soda Springs and Westside: Idaho State Journal
Dixie National ForestDixie Forest Supervisor decisions: The Spectrum
District Ranger decisions for Cedar City and Pine Valley: The Spectrum
District Ranger decisions for Escalante and Powell: The Insider
Decisions affecting the former Teasdale Ranger District area of the Dixie National Forest, now managed by the Fishlake National Forest, Fremont River District Ranger: The Richfield Reaper
Fishlake National ForestFishlake Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: The Richfield Reaper
Humboldt-Toiyabe National ForestHumboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions that encompass all or portions of both the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests: Reno Gazette-Journal
Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Humboldt portion: Elko Daily Free Press
Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Toiyabe portion: Reno Gazette-Journal
Austin-Tonopah District Ranger decisions: Reno Gazette-Journal
Bridgeport District Ranger decisions: Reno Gazette-Journal
Carson District Ranger decisions: Reno Gazette-Journal
Ely District Ranger decisions: The Ely Times
Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge District Ranger decisions: Elko Daily Free Press
Santa Rosa District Ranger decisions: Humboldt Sun
Spring Mountains National Recreation Area District Ranger decisions: Las Vegas Review Journal
Manti-La Sal National ForestManti-La Sal Forest Supervisor decisions: ETV News (Emery Telcom)
Ferron District Ranger decisions: ETV News (Emery Telcom)
Moab District Ranger decisions: The Times-Independent
Monticello District Ranger decisions: San Juan Record
Price District Ranger decisions: ETV News (Emery Telcom)
Sanpete District Ranger decisions: Sanpete Messenger
Payette National ForestPayette Forest Supervisor decisions: Idaho Statesman
Council District Ranger decisions: The Record Reporter
District Ranger decisions for Krassel, McCall, and New Meadows: Star-News
Weiser District Ranger decisions: Weiser Signal American
Salmon-Challis National ForestSalmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Salmon portion: The Recorder-Herald
Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Challis portion: The Challis Messenger
District Ranger decisions for Lost River, Middle Fork and Challis-Yankee Fork: The Challis Messenger
District Ranger decisions for Leadore, North Fork and Salmon-Cobalt: The Recorder-Herald
Sawtooth National ForestSawtooth Forest Supervisor decisions: Times-News
District Ranger decisions for Fairfield and Minidoka: Times-News
Ketchum District Ranger decisions: Idaho Mountain Express
Sawtooth National Recreation Area: The Challis Messenger
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National ForestForest Supervisor decisions for the Uinta portion, including the Vernon Unit: Provo Daily Herald
Forest Supervisor decisions for the Wasatch-Cache portion: Salt Lake Tribune
Forest Supervisor decisions for the entire Uinta-Wasatch-Cache: Salt Lake Tribune
District Ranger decisions for the Heber-Kamas, Pleasant Grove and Spanish Fork Ranger Districts: Provo Daily Herald
District Ranger decisions for Evanston-Mountain View: Uinta County Herald
District Ranger decisions for Salt Lake: Salt Lake Tribune
District Ranger decisions for Logan: Logan Herald Journal
District Ranger decisions for Ogden: Standard Examiner
Keith Lannom, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. 2024-24193 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P• Thursday, November 17, 2024 from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Central Time
• Thursday, December 12, 2024 from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Central Time
• Thursday, January 9, 2025 from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Central Time
• Thursday, February 13, 2025 from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Central Time
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via Zoom. November 14th, December 12th, 2024 and January 9th, and February 13th 2025 Business Meetings— Registration Link: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_kDEmPTAGSf6SRFIkdrEuzA
—Join by Phone (Audio Only) 1-833-435-1820 USA Toll Free: Meeting ID: 161 597 4723
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mallory Trachtenberg, Designated Federal Officer, at mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov or 1-202-809-9618. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484113 according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available. To request additional accommodations, please email Corrine Sanders, Support Specialist, at csanders@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg, mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Iowa Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov. AgendaI. Welcome and Roll Call
II. Discussion and Potential Votes: Iowa Draft Report
III. Public Comment
IV. Adjournment
Dated: October 16, 2024. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit. [FR Doc. 2024-24268 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P• Thursday, November 14, 2024 from 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Central Time
• Thursday, December 12, 2024 from 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Central Time
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held via Zoom.November 14th Meeting:
• Registration Link ( Audio / Visual ): https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_XtCobYziRsiMcOfumQGs1g
• Join by Phone (Audio Only): 1-833-435-1820 USA Toll Free; Meeting ID: 161 746 3524
December 12th Meeting:
• Registration Link ( Audio / Visual ): https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_fJFE2bkIQRy1PKE-2iflBQ
• Join by Phone (Audio Only): 1-833-435-1820 USA Toll Free; Meeting ID: 160 917 2654
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Moreno, DFO, at vmoreno@usccr.gov or by phone at 434-515-0204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public may listen to the discussions through the above call-in numbers (audio only) or online registration links (audio/visual). An open comment period at each meeting will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and/or hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and meeting ID number. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria at vmoreno@usccr.gov. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Nebraska Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address. AgendaI. Welcome and Roll Call
II. Chair's Comments
III. Committee Business
IV. Public Comment
V. Adjournment
Dated: October 16, 2024. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit. [FR Doc. 2024-24263 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE PI. Welcome & Roll Call
II. Panelist Presentations & Committee Q&A
III. Public Comment
IV. Closing Remarks
V. Adjournment
Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting due to the availability of staff and the Committee. Dated: October 16, 2024. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit. [FR Doc. 2024-24300 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P• Patricia Abaroa, Deputy Director, BEA
• Vipin Arora, Director, BEA and PRB Chair
• Luis J. Cano, Chief Information Officer, Census Bureau
• Paul Farello, Associate Director for International Economics, BEA
• Douglas Follansbee, Chief Financial Officer, BEA
• Laura K. Furgione, Chief Administrative Officer, Census Bureau
• Fernandez Boards, Chief Financial Officer, Census Bureau
• Benjamin Bolitzer, Deputy Chief Economist, OUSEA
• Ron S. Jarmin, Deputy Director, Census Bureau
• Christa D. Jones, Chief of Staff, Census Bureau
• Ditas Katague, Associate Director for Communications, Census Bureau
• Rodrick Owens, Chief of Congressional Affairs, Census Bureau
• Edith J. McCloud, Senior Advisor to the Director, Office of Civil Rights
• John Ingley, Director of Program Integration Office, NOAA
• Timothy Olson, Associate Director for Field Operations, Census Bureau
• Nick Orsini, Associate Director for Economic Programs, Census Bureau
• Mauricio Ortiz, Associate Director for Regional Economics, BEA
• Deborah Stempowski, Associate Director for Decennial Census, Census Bureau
• Victoria Velkoff, Associate Director for Demographic Programs, Census Bureau
• David Wasshausen, Associate Director for National Economic Accounts, BEA
• Oliver Wise, Chief Data Officer, OUSEA
• David R. Ziaya, Chief, Office of Program, Performance and Stakeholder Performance, and Stakeholder Integration, Census Bureau
Dated: September 26, 2024. Vipin Arora, Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis. [FR Doc. 2024-24183 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-MN-P• PTO-1563 (Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce Under Section 8)
• PTO-1573 (Declaration of Incontestability of a Mark Under Section 15)
• PTO-1583 (Combined Declaration of Use and Incontestability Under Sections 8 and 15)
• PTO-1597 (Section 7 Request)
• PTO-1963 (Combined Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce and Application for Renewal of Registration of a Mark Under Sections 8 and 9)
• PTO-2302 (Response to Office Action for Post-Registration Matters)
• PTO-2309 (Surrender of Registration for Cancellation)
• PTO-2310 (Request to Divide Registration)
• PTO-2311 (Section 12(c) Affidavit)
Type of Review: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. Affected Public: Private sector. Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Frequency: On occasion. Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 271,793 respondents. Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 271,793 responses. Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that the responses in this information collection will take the public approximately between 12 minutes (0.20 hours) and 50 minutes (0.83 hours) to complete. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, create the document, and Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484124 submit the completed request to the USPTO. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 162,987 hours. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Non-Hourly Cost Burden: $103,718,072. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce, USPTO information collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website, www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number, 0651-0055. Further information can be obtained by: • Email: InformationCollection@uspto.gov. Include “0651-0055 information request” in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Justin Isaac, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Justin Isaac, Information Collections Officer, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2024-24251 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-PDecisional Matter: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Requirements for Neck Floats
To attend the meeting remotely, please use the following link: https://cpsc.webex.com/cpsc/j.php?MTID=m0f3fefc193fcb23633327ffa320d3a04
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Alberta E Mills, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (Cell). Dated: October 16, 2024. Alberta E. Mills, Commission Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24362 Filed 10-17-24; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE P• November 14, 2024, from 9:45 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., ET
• November 15, 2024, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., ET
ADDRESSES: Royal Sonesta Capitol Hill, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Scott, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-7502, fax: (202) 357-6945, email: Angela.Scott@ed.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Authority and Function: The Governing Board is established under the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621). Information on the Governing Board and its work can be found at www.nagb.gov . Notice of the meetings is required under section 1009(a)(2) of 5 U.S.C. chapter 10 (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act). The Governing Board formulates policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Governing Board's responsibilities include: (1) selecting the subject areas to be assessed; (2) developing appropriate student achievement levels; (3) developing assessment objectives and testing specifications that produce an assessment that is valid and reliable, and are based on relevant widely accepted professional standards; (4) developing a process for review of the assessment which includes the active participation of teachers, curriculum specialists, local school administrators, parents, and concerned members of the public; (5) designing the methodology of the assessment to ensure that assessment items are valid and reliable, in consultation with appropriate technical experts in measurement and assessment, content and subject matter, sampling, and other technical experts who engage in large scale surveys; (6) measuring student academic achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12 in the authorized academic subjects; (7) developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results; (8) developing standards and procedures for regional and national comparisons; (9) taking appropriate actions needed to improve the form, content use, and reporting of results of an assessment; and (10) planning and executing the initial public release of NAEP results. Standing Committee Meetings The Governing Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work. Standing committee meeting agendas and meeting materials will be posted on the Governing Board's website, www.nagb.gov, no later than five (5) business days prior to the meetings. Minutes of prior standing committee meetings are available at https://www.nagb.gov/governing-board/quarterly-board-meetings.html . Standing Committee Meetings Wednesday, October 30, 2024 Executive Committee (Virtual Meeting)2:00 p.m.-2:50 p.m. (ET), Open Session
2:50 p.m.-4:00 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
The Executive Committee will meet in open session on Wednesday, October 30, 2024, from 2:00 p.m.-2:50 p.m. to review the November 14-15, 2024, quarterly Board meeting agenda, receive updates from the Executive Director on Board priorities, and receive an update from the Assessment Development Committee. There will be a break from 2:50 p.m.-2:55 p.m. From 2:50 p.m.-4:00 p.m., the Executive Committee will meet in closed session to discuss the NAEP budget and contracts. The session must be closed to the public because the discussions pertain to the federal budget and acquisition process. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Wednesday, November 13, 2024 Nominations Committee (In-Person Meeting)4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
The Nominations Committee will meet in closed session on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to discuss applications for Board vacancies for the 2024-2025 nominations cycle as well as the rating process and member assignments for reviewing the applications. The discussion pertains to information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemption 6 of the Government Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b . Thursday, November 14, 2024 Executive Committee (In-person)8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. (ET), Open Session
The Executive Committee will meet in open session on Thursday, November 14, 2024, from 8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. to receive remarks from the Board Chair and an update from the Executive Director, and to discuss issues related to the implementation of the Board's recently-adopted strategic vision. Assessment Development Committee (In-Person Meeting)3:30 p.m.-4:20 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
4:20 p.m.-5:30 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
The Assessment Development Committee will meet in closed session on Thursday, November 14, 2024, from 3:30 p.m.-4:20 p.m. to receive an overview of the current NAEP U.S. History and Civics Frameworks and Assessments. This review must be conducted in closed session because the content includes secure assessment items that have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of this information would significantly impede the implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. The committee will then convene in open session from 4:20 p.m.-5:30 p.m. From 4:20 p.m. to 5:10 p.m., the committee will hear the initial discussions of the Social Studies Advisory Content Group. From 5:10 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., the committee will receive updates and engage in an open discussion. Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology (In-Person Meeting)3:30 p.m.-4:35 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
4:35 p.m.-5:30 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
The Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology will meet on Thursday, November 14, 2024, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The committee will meet in closed session from 3:30 p.m. to 4:35 p.m., to receive a presentation on the findings of the dress rehearsal of the Automated Scoring of Reading items. The committee will transition to receive a presentation on findings from the Bridge study comparing the use of Chromebooks to Surface Pros from 4:35 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. These sessions must be closed because they will include findings and presentations of items that have not Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484126 been released to the public. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Reporting and Dissemination Committee (In-Person Meeting)3:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. (ET) Open Session
The Reporting and Dissemination Committee will meet on Thursday, November 14, 2024, in open session from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The committee will open with remarks from new committee leadership from 3:30 to 3:45 p.m., followed by an update on Strategic Communications from 3:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., a discussion on the Release Plan for 2024 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Results from 4:35 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., and review and discussion of the Reporting Policy from 5:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Quarterly Governing Board Meeting The plenary sessions of the Governing Board's November 2024 quarterly meeting will be held on the following dates and times: Thursday, November 14, 20249:45 a.m.-3:15 p.m. (ET) (Hybrid Meeting)
9:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. (ET), Open Session
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. (ET), Closed Session
2:15 p.m.-3:15 p.m. (ET) Open Session
On Thursday, November 14, 2024, the plenary session of the quarterly Governing Board meeting will convene in open session from 9:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., and in closed session from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. From 9:45 a.m. to 9:50 a.m., Beverly Perdue, Chair of the Governing Board, will welcome members, review and approve the November 14-15, 2024, quarterly Governing Board meeting agenda, and approve the minutes from the August 8-9, 2024, Governing Board meeting. From 9:50 a.m. to 10:20 a.m., new and reappointed Board members will be sworn into office, and make introductory remarks from 10:20 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Other Board members will introduce themselves and welcome new members from 10:45 a.m.-11:15 a.m. From 11:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., Lesley Muldoon, Governing Board Executive Director, will provide updates on the Board's work, followed by an update from NCES Commissioner Peggy Carr from 11:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Following a fifteen-minute transitional break, the Board will meet in closed session from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., to receive an update on the NAEP Budget and Contracting from NCES Commissioner Peggy Carr and NCES Associate Commissioner Dan McGrath. The briefing and discussions may impact current and future NAEP contracts and budgets and must be kept confidential to maintain the integrity of the federal acquisition process. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of title 5 of the United States Code. The Board will meet in open session from 2:15 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. to discuss proposed revisions to the Assessment Framework Development Policy. The Thursday, November 14, 2024, session of the Governing Board meeting will adjourn at 3:15 p.m. Friday, November 15, 20249:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (ET) (Hybrid Meeting)
9:00 a.m.-10:40 a.m. (ET), Closed Session
10:50 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (ET), Open Session
On Friday, November 15, 2024, the Governing Board meeting will convene in closed session from 9:00 a.m. to 10:40 a.m. and thereafter in open session from 10:50 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. From 9:00 a.m. to 10:40 a.m., Governing Board members will receive a briefing on the 2024 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessment Report card results. This session must be closed because the presentation will include embargoed assessment data and results that cannot be released to the public at this time. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. The Governing Board will reconvene in open session from 10:50 a.m. to 11:35 a.m., to discuss and take action on the release plan for the 2024 Nation's Report Card: Reading and Mathematics, Grades 4 and 8. From 11:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., members will receive updates on the work of the Board's standing committees. From 12:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., members will discuss the draft Artificial Intelligence (AI) and NAEP Ethical Use Policy, followed by member discussion from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. The Friday, November 15, 2024, session of the meeting will adjourn at 2:00 p.m. Instructions for Accessing and Attending the Meetings Registration: Members of the public may attend the November 14-15, 2024, meetings of the full Governing Board either in person or virtually. A link to the final meeting agenda and information on how to register for virtual attendance for the open sessions will be posted on the Governing Board's website, www.nagb.gov, no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting. Registration is required to join the meeting virtually. Public Comment: Written comments related to the work of the Governing Board and its standing committees may be submitted to the attention of the DFO, either via email to Angela.Scott@ed.gov or in hard copy to the address listed above. Written comments related to the November 14-15, 2024 Governing Board meeting should be submitted no later than close of business on November 6, 2024, and should reference the relevant agenda item. Access to Records of the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009, the public may inspect the meeting materials and other Governing Board records at 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, by emailing Angela.Scott@ed.gov to schedule an appointment. The official verbatim transcripts of the open meeting sessions will be available for public inspection no later than 30 calendar days following each meeting and will be posted on the Governing Board's website. Requests for the verbatim transcriptions may be made via email to the DFO. Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting location is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting ( e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the DFO listed in this notice by close of business on November 6, 2024. Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the Adobe website. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484127 Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov . Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Authority: Pub. L. 107-279, title III, section 301—National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621). Lesley Muldoon, Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), U. S. Department of Education. [FR Doc. 2024-24274 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-PState | Community | Channel No. |
---|---|---|
AL | Vernon | * 4 |
AK | Anchorage | * 26 |
AK | Bethel | * 3 |
CA | Colusa | * 2 |
CA | Fort Bragg | * 4 |
CA | Tulare | * 3 |
ID | Filer | * 18 |
IA | Ames | * 21 |
NM | Alamogordo | * 4 |
OR | Jacksonville | * 4 |
TX | Waco | * 20 |
VA | Waynesboro | * 12 |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Maintain Securities Trading Policies and Procedures, 12 CFR 344.8 (Mandatory) | Recordkeeping (On Occasion) | 632 | 1 | 1:00 | 632 |
2. Officer/Employee Filing of Reports of Personal Securities Trading, 12 CFR 344.9 (Mandatory) | Third Party Disclosure (On Occasion) | 1,896 | 4 | 1:00 | 7,584 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 8,216 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Notice of Branch Closure to FDIC, 12 U.S.C. 1831r-(a) (Mandatory) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 276 | 2.99 | 00:30 | 413 |
2. Notice of Branch Closure to Customers, 12 U.S.C. 1831r-(b) (Mandatory) | Disclosure (On Occasion) | 276 | 2.99 | 1:30 | 1,238 |
3. Adoption of Branch Closure Policy, 12 U.S.C. 1831r-1 (Mandatory) | Recordkeeping (Annual) | 18 | 1 | 08:00 | 144 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 1,795 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Certification of Assumption of Deposit Liabilities 12 CFR 307.2 (Mandatory) | Reporting (On occasion) | 162 | 1 | 1:00 | 162 |
Notice to Depositors 12 CFR 307.3 (Mandatory) | Disclosure (On occasion) | 12 | 1 | 2:00 | 24 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 186 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Customer Assistance Form (6422/04) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 8,566 | 1 | 00:15 | 2,142 |
2. Business Assistance Form (6422/11) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1,191 | 1 | 00:15 | 298 |
3. FDIC Deposit Insurance Form (6422/15) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1,465 | 1 | 00:15 | 366 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 2,806 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Posting and removing provisional holds—Implementation—12 CFR 360.9(c)(1) and (2) (Mandatory) | Recordkeeping (One time) | 8 | 1 | 150:00 | 1,200 |
2. Providing standard data format for deposit account and customer information—Implementation—12 CFR 360.9(d)(1) (Mandatory) | Recordkeeping (One time) | 8 | 1 | 110:00 | 880 |
3. Notification of identity of person responsible for producing standard data downloads—Implementation—12 CFR 360.9(c)(3) (Mandatory) | Reporting (One time) | 8 | 1 | 8:00 | 64 |
4. Provide deposit account and customer information in required standard format—Implementation—12 CFR 360.9(d)(3) (Mandatory) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 8 | 1 | 40:00 | 320 |
5. Request for exemption from provisional hold requirements—Implementation—12 CFR 360.9(c)(9) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1 | 1 | 20:00 | 20 |
6. Request for extension of compliance deadline—Implementation—12 CFR 360.9(e)(7) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1 | 1 | 20:00 | 20 |
7. Request for exemption—Implementation 12 CFR 360.9(f) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1 | 1 | 20:00 | 20 |
8. Notification of identity of person responsible for producing standard data downloads—Ongoing—12 CFR 360.9(c)(3) (Mandatory) | Reporting (Annual) | 123 | 1 | 8:00 | 984 |
9. Request for exemption from provisional hold requirements—Ongoing—12 CFR 360.9(c)(9) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1 | 1 | 20:00 | 20 |
10. Request for exemption—Ongoing—12 CFR 360.9(f) (Voluntary) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1 | 1 | 20:00 | 20 |
11. Test compliance with 12 CFR 360.9 (c)-(d) pursuant to 12 CFR 360.9(h)—Ongoing—12 CFR 360.9 (h) (Mandatory) | Reporting (Annual) | 30 | 1 | 80:00 | 2,400 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 5,948 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Assessment Rate Adjustment Guidelines for Large and Highly Complex Institutions, 12 CFR 327 (Required to obtain or retain benefits) | Reporting (On Occasion) | 1 | 1 | 80:00 | 80 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 80 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Information collection (IC) (obligation to respond) | Type of burden (frequency of response) | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Time per response (HH:MM) | Annual burden (hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Written Notice of Appraiser Removal from Network or Panel, 12 CFR 323.10 (Mandatory) | Disclosure (On occasion) | 8,481 | 1 | 00:05 | 707 |
2. Develop and Maintain a State Licensing Program, 12 CFR 323.11(a) and (b) (Mandatory) | Recordkeeping (On occasion) | 1 | 1 | 40:00 | 40 |
3. AMC Disclosure Requirements (State-regulated AMCs), 12 CFR 323.12 (Mandatory) | Disclosure (On occasion) | 1,206 | 1 | 01:00 | 1,206 |
4. AMC Disclosure Requirements (Federally regulated AMCs), 12 CFR 323.13(c) (Mandatory) | Disclosure (On occasion) | 38 | 1 | 01:00 | 38 |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) | 1,991 | ||||
Source: FDIC. |
Frequency: Annual
Affected Public: Federal contractors
Number of Respondents: 1000
Responses per Respondent: 1
Total Annual Responses: 320
Estimated Time per Respondent: 26.3 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484142
Total Burden Hours: 8421
C. Public Comments A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 89 FR 59100 on July 22, 2024. Two comments were received. Comment: One commenter supported GSA's use of the CDP Supply Chain Questionnaire, and further suggested sharing aggregate information from the surveys with federal agencies working on climate change issues; linking GSA's efforts with other federal and non-federal efforts to bolster supply chain resilience; and considering administering the survey on a voluntary basis to large federal grantees such as state agencies that receive considerable federal funding. Response: GSA appreciates this commenter's support. GSA already shares aggregate information from this survey with other federal agencies and collaborates with other federal and non-federal efforts to bolster supply chain resilience, and expects to continue to do so. GSA does not administer significant grants, and notes that CDP Supply Chain questionnaires were developed for use by private sector respondents and are not commonly used by public sector respondents, which would increases the potential burdens and decrease the utility of information collected from this type of respondents. Comment: One commenter asserted that climate change does not exist, and requested that GSA “reimburse the taxpayer for this hoax.” Response: The existence and impacts of climate change, including risks to the economy and efficiency of federal procurement and supply chains, are well supported by the Fifth National Climate Assessment (“NCA5,” https://nca2023.globalchange.gov ), the US Government's preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. The NCA5 was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and authored by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a collaboration between at least fifteen U.S. Federal agencies. The NCA5 was based on a comprehensive review and assessment of information sources determined to meet the standards and documentation required under the Information Quality Act and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, including peer-reviewed literature, other literature, Indigenous Knowledge, other expert and local knowledge, and climate data processed and prepared for authors by NOAA's Technical Support Unit. NCA5 was thoroughly reviewed by Federal Government experts, external experts, and the public multiple times throughout the report development process. An expert external review was performed by an ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Even if climate change were a “hoax,” GSA lacks authorities or mechanisms for general reimbursements to taxpayers. Lois Mandell, Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-24192 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-PType of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden per response (in hours) | Total burden (in hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traveler | CDC Initial Screening—Marburg | 43,800 | 1 | 5/60 | 3,650 |
Traveler | POE Public Health Risk Assessment Form—CDC Marburg Response | 4,380 | 1 | 20/60 | 1,460 |
Total | 5,110 |
Type of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden per response (in hours) | Total burden (in hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Individuals ill with cryptosporidiosis, or their designated proxy | CryptoNet Case Report Form | 500 | 1 | 15/60 | 125 |
Total | 125 |
Type of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden per response (in hours) | Total burden (in hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCR Awardees | PEI (Online) | 30 | 1 | 4 | 120 |
NPCR Awardees | PEI (Paper) | 3 | 1 | 4 | 12 |
Total | 132 |
Type of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden per response (in hours) | Total burden (in hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ORS Public Health Analysts | ORS Annual Evaluation Survey-PHA | 61 | 1 | 30/60 | 31 |
ORS Quarterly Reporting Template | 61 | 4 | 1 | 244 | |
ORS Drug Intelligence Officers | ORS Annual Evaluation Survey-DIO | 61 | 1 | 30/60 | 31 |
ORS Quarterly Reporting Template | 61 | 4 | 1 | 244 | |
State, territory, county and city health department staff | ORS Annual Evaluation Survey-Public Health Partner | 70 | 1 | 30/60 | 35 |
HIDTA staff | ORS Annual Evaluation Survey-Public Safety Partner | 70 | 1 | 30/60 | 35 |
CDCF ORS National Team Staff | ORS Annual Evaluation Survey-ORS Management/Coordination Team | 25 | 1 | 30/60 | 13 |
Total | 633 |
Type of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Avg. burden per response (in hrs.) | Total burden (in hrs.) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Medical & Health Service Manager | Recognition Program Application | 50 | 1 | 160/60 | 134 |
Medical & Health Service Manager | Interview Guide | 30 | 1 | 30/60 | 15 |
Total | 149 |
Type of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden per response (in hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|
OD2A (OD2A in States and OD2A: LOCAL) Recipients | TA Feedback Form Individual | 618 | 2 | 5/60 |
TA Feedback Form Universal | 617 | 2 | 5/60 | |
Annual Technical Assistance Survey | 162 | 1 | 10/60 | |
Implementation Feedback Survey | 18 | 1 | 15/60 | |
Email invitation for Annual Survey | 900 | 1 | 2/60 | |
Focus Groups Email invitation | 600 | 1 | 2/60 | |
Focus Group Session Script | 100 | 1 | 1 |
Type of respondents | Form name | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden per response (in hours) | Total burden (in hours) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
State/Local Health Department | CDC—Marburg Virus Disease Healthcare Worker Monitoring 2024 | 70 | 104 | 5/60 | 607 |
State/Local Health Department | MVD Final Survey_10.08.2024 | 70 | 1 | 20/60 | 23 |
Total | 630 |
CMS-10171 Part D Coordination of Benefits Data
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice. Information Collections 1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Part D Coordination of Benefits Data; Use: Sections 1860D-23 and 1860D-24 of the Act require the Secretary to establish requirements for prescription drug plans to promote effective coordination between Part D plans and SPAPs and other payers. These Part D Coordination of Benefits (COB) requirements have been codified into the Code of Federal Regulations at 42 CFR 423.464. In particular, CMS' requirements relate to the following elements: (1) enrollment file sharing; (2) claims processing and payment; (3) claims reconciliation reports; (4) application of the protections against high out-of-pocket expenditures by tracking TrOOP expenditures; and (5) other processes that the Secretary determines. This information collection request assists CMS, pharmacists, Part D plans, and other payers coordinate prescription drug benefits at the point-of-sale and track beneficiary True out-of-pocket (TrOOP) expenditures using the Part D Transaction Facilitator (PDTF). Form Number: CMS-10171 (OMB control number: 0938-0978); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Number of Respondents: 67,043; Total Annual Responses: 935,730,342; Total Annual Hours: 1,011,740. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Chad Buskirk at 410-786-1630 or chad.buskirk@cms.hhs.gov. ) William N. Parham, III, Director, Division of Information Collections and Regulatory Impacts, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs. [FR Doc. 2024-24266 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-PInformation collection instrument | Number of respondents | Annual number of responses per respondent | Average annual burden hours per response | Annual burden hours |
---|---|---|---|---|
Input Record Specifications | 54 | 52 | .3 | 842.4 |
Output Record Specifications | 54 | 52 | .46 | 1,291.68 |
Payment File (Charts 4-5) | 54 | 52 | .14 | 393.12 |
Annual Certification Letter | 54 | 1 | .4 | 21.6 |
Child Support Portal Processing Screens | 173 | 281 | .01 | 486.13 |
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: October 15, 2024. Miguelina Perez, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24236 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: October 16, 2024. Lauren A. Fleck, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24242 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: October 15, 2024. Miguelina Perez, Program Analyst Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24241 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: October 15, 2024. Miguelina Perez, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24237 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484166 Dated: October 16, 2024. Bruce A. George, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24239 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: October 15, 2024. Miguelina Perez, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24238 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: October 15, 2024. Victoria E. Townsend, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-24199 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-PI. Protecting Scientific Processes
II. Ensuring the Free Flow of Scientific Information
III. Supporting Decision Making Processes
IV. Ensuring Accountability
V. Protections
VI. Professional Development for Government Scientists, and
VII. Federal Advisory Committees
I. Protecting Scientific Processes NIH has implemented a suite of complementary efforts to protect the integrity of research processes from bias and interference, which is essential to upholding public trust and confidence. These efforts rely on transparent processes, diverse community engagement, management of real or apparent conflicts of interest, and robust and open dialogue. NIH utilizes a variety of mechanisms to achieve these aims, such as holding policy discussions in open settings, soliciting public input on future research directions, and the use of Federal advisory committees (FACs) to advise the agency. In addition, for covered individuals, NIH explicitly prohibits political interference or inappropriately shaping or interfering in the conduct, management, communication, or use of science for inappropriate partisan advantage such that it undermines impartiality, objectivity, nonpartisanship, or professional judgment. Further processes will be developed and documented to support this policy in an NIH Manual Chapter and/or additional guidance. It is the policy of NIH to: 1. Prohibit political interference or other inappropriate influence in the design, proposal, conduct, review, management, evaluation, communication of, and use of scientific activities and scientific information conducted by covered individuals. 2. Prohibit inappropriate restrictions on resources and capacity that limit and reduce the availability of science and scientific products ( e.g., manuscripts for scientific journals, presentations for workshops, conferences, and symposia) outside of normal budgetary or priority-setting processes or without scientific, legal, or security justification. 10 10 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3005 on Review and Evaluation of Intramural Programs. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/3005. 3. Require that leadership and management ensure that covered individuals engaged in scientific activities can conduct their work objectively, free from political interference or other inappropriate influence, and free from retaliation. 4. Require reasonable efforts by covered individuals to ensure the fidelity of the scientific record and to correct identified inaccuracies that pertain to their contribution to any scientific records. 5. Require that covered individuals represent their contributions to scientific work fairly and accurately and neither accept nor assume unauthorized and/or unwarranted credit for another's accomplishments. To be named as an author, contributors should, at a minimum, have (1) made a substantial contribution or provided editorial revisions that include critical intellectual content, (2) approved the final version, and (3) agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work to which they contributed. Prior consent should be obtained from each author to be represented on a particular work. Obtaining prior consent for acknowledgements is also a good practice. 11 11 This provision is further outlined in the 2023 8th Edition of Guidelines and Policies for the Conduct of Research in the Intramural Research Program at NIH. Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/system/files/media/file/2023-08/guidelines-conduct_research.pdf. 6. Ensure independent review of scientific activities conducted by covered individuals as appropriate to ensure scientific integrity. 12 12 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3005 on Review and Evaluation of Intramural Programs. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/3005. 7. Require that covered individuals comply with NIH policies and procedures for planning and conducting Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484174 scientific activities and show appropriate diligence toward protecting and conserving Federal research resources, such as equipment and other property, and records of data and results that are entrusted to them. 8. Prohibit research misconduct, the deliberate or reckless use of improper or inappropriate research methods or processes, and noncompliance with practices that safeguard the quality of research and other scientific activities or enhance research security for covered individuals. 13 13 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3006 on NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) Research Misconduct Proceedings. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/3006. 9. Require that covered individuals design, conduct, manage, evaluate, and communicate about scientific research and other scientific activities honestly and thoroughly, and disclose any conflicts of interest to their supervisor or other appropriate NIH official(s) for their determination as to whether a recusal, disclaimer, or other action is appropriate, consistent with NIH ethics policies and procedures. 14 14 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Certification for Individuals Evaluating all NIH Intramural Programs. Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/system/files/media/file/2021-08/conflict_of_interest-bsc_reviews.pdf. 10. Require that research conducted by covered individuals involving the participation of human subjects and the use of non-human animals is conducted in accordance with applicable, established laws, regulations, policies, and ethical considerations. 15 15 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3014 on NIH Intramural Human Research Protection Program and the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3040-2 on Animal Care and Use in the Intramural Research Program. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/3014 and https://policymanual.nih.gov/3040-2 respectively. 11. Support and enhance scientific integrity with the understanding that violations of scientific integrity can have a disproportional impact on underrepresented groups or weaken the equitable delivery of Federal Government programs. 12. Consistent with OSTP guidance and relevant HHS and NIH policy, prohibit NIH personnel engaged in intramural research from participation in foreign talent recruitment programs, unless the participation is in an international conference or other international exchange, partnership, or program for which such participation has been approved by the appropriate authority in NIH. 16 16 Health Extenders, Improving Access to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, and Strengthening Public Health Act of 2022, Public Law 117-328, Division FF, Title II, Section 2321 (Jan 3, 2023) at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ328/PLAW-117publ328.pdf and Chips and Science Act, Public Law 117-167, Title VI, Subtitle D, Section 10631 (Aug 9, 2022) at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf. OSTP guidance and relevant HHS and NIH policies to implement this legislation are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/OSTP-Foreign-Talent-Recruitment-Program-Guidelines.pdf and https://grants.nih.gov/policy/foreign-interference/requirements-for-disclosure. 13. Consistent with OSTP guidance and relevant HHS and NIH policy, require disclosure of participation in foreign talent recruitment programs, including the provision of copies of all grants, contracts, or other agreements related to such programs, and other supporting documentation related to such programs, as a condition of receipt of Federal extramural research funding awarded through NIH. 17 17 Health Extenders, Improving Access to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, and Strengthening Public Health Act of 2022, Public Law 117-328, Division FF, Title II, Section 2321 (Jan 3, 2023) at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ328/PLAW-117publ328.pdf and Chips and Science Act, Public Law 117-167, Title VI, Subtitle D, Section 10631 (Aug 9, 2022) at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf. OSTP guidance and relevant HHS and NIH policies to implement this legislation are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/OSTP-Foreign-Talent-Recruitment-Program-Guidelines.pdf and https://grants.nih.gov/policy/foreign-interference/requirements-for-disclosure. 14. Prohibit the suspension or early termination of an extramural grant awarded by NIH except as consistent with applicable law and grants policies. 18 19 18 https://grants.nih.gov/policy/nihgps/index.htm 19 45 CFR 75.372. Available at: ht tps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2022-title45-vol1/pdf/CFR-2022-title45-vol1-sec75-372.pdf. II. Ensuring the Free Flow of Scientific Information NIH is committed to the broad and equitable dissemination and promotion of rigorous and objective scientific information. The NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison (OCPL) and communication offices within the NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices (NIH ICOs) disseminate objective and evidence-based research findings to the public through websites, listservs, brochures, videos, social media, and other modes of communication as appropriate. NIH OCPL and the ICO communication offices also respond to public inquiries and engage with technical and non-technical audiences through media and online forums to ensure responsible communication regarding the research it funds. At the foundation of the NIH mission is the generation of reliable and rigorous research results, and their publication in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals. NIH's IRP researchers adhere to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) 20 and the NIH-wide Policy for Manuscript and Abstract Clearance Procedures at https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/submitting-research-publications/publication-abstract-clearance, and follow established guidance to ensure transparency in research findings through Processes for Authorship Dispute Resolution at https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/authorship-guidelines-resources/nih-irp-authorship-conflict-resolution-process if the situation arises. 20 Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) provide the basic guidelines for official duty activities, and NIH sets the policy for implementing the guidelines at the agency. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2635. It is the policy of NIH to: 1. Facilitate the free flow of scientific and technological information, to the extent permissible by Federal laws and regulations. 21 Consistent with open science expectations, NIH will expand and promote access to scientific and technological information by making it available freely and without embargo to the public in an online digital format. 22 23 24 25 21 Per the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635), “Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind the Government.” Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2635. 22 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. February 22, 2013. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf. 23 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research. August 25, 2022. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf. 24 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 1184 on Preparation and Clearance of Scientific, Technical, and Public Information Presented by NIH Employees or Produced for Distribution by NIH. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/1184. 25 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. Available at: https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy. 2. Ensure that scientific findings and products created by NIH scientists are not unduly suppressed, delayed, or altered for political purposes and are not subjected to inappropriate influence. 3. Encourage, but not require, NIH scientists to participate in their official capacities in communications with the Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484175 media regarding their scientific activities and areas of expertise, subject to limitations of Government ethics rules (5 CFR part 2635). In communicating with the media, NIH scientists must seek advice from career NIH communications experts when acting in their official capacities. 4. Allow NIH scientists and other covered individuals to express their personal views and opinions to the media with appropriate written or oral disclaimers, including on social media, subject to the limitations of Government ethics rules, HHS supplemental ethics regulations, social media regulations, and obligation to protect nonpublic information. 26 NIH scientists and other covered individuals may name NIH as their employer as one biographical fact among several; however, their title and position cannot receive more prominence than any other biographical fact. They should not be sourced by the media as an NIH representative and shall refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, NIH or any other Federal Government policy, including the use of NIH or other U.S. Government seals or logos, unless they have secured appropriate prior approval to do so. 27 26 Per the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635), “Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind the Government.” Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2635. 27 These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. 5. Require that technical review and clearance processes include provisions for timely clearance and expressly forbid censorship, unreasonable delay, and suppression of objective communication of data and results without valid scientific, legal, or security justification. Deviations from clearance policies or procedures that result in suppression, delay, or alteration of scientific and technological information without scientific, legal, or security justification may constitute violations of the NIH Scientific Integrity Policy and may be reported under the Addressing Scientific Integrity Concerns section in this document. 6. Prohibit NIH officials, including communications officers, from altering, or directing NIH scientists and technology experts to alter, scientific and technological research findings or presentation of research findings in a manner that may compromise the objectivity or accurate representation of those findings. 7. Ensure that scientific information is accurately represented in responses provided by NIH to Congressional inquiries, tribal inquiries, testimony, and other requests. 8. Ensure that the work and conclusions of NIH scientists and the work and conclusions of scientists funded or supported by the Federal government are accurately represented in NIH communications. If communication documents significantly rely on a scientist's research, identify them as an author, or represent their scientific opinion, the scientist will be given the option to review the scientific content of proposed communication documents prior to publication or public release. 9. Accurately represent the work and conclusions of NIH scientists in NIH social media communications and provide appropriate guidance to NIH scientists on the use of NIH social media. If NIH scientists whose work is represented in NIH social media identify any errors in those representations regarding their scientific activities and areas of expertise, NIH social media managers are responsible for making appropriate corrections. 10. When offering spokespersons in response to media requests, offer knowledgeable spokespersons who can, in an objective and nonpartisan manner, describe the relevant scientific or technological aspects of their work. 11. Ensure that NIH scientists may communicate their scientific activities objectively without political interference or other inappropriate influence consistent with HHS 28 and NIH 29 communication and media policies. Scientific products must adhere to relevant NIH technical review procedures. 28 This provision is further outlined in the HHS Guidelines on the Provision of Information to the News Media. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/media_policy.pdf. 29 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 1184 on Preparation and Clearance of Scientific, Technical, and Public Information Presented by NIH Employees or Produced for Distribution by NIH. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/1184. III. Supporting Decision Making Processes NIH utilizes multiple mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability in developing policy and informing decision making. The development of science policy at NIH generally follows procedures set forth under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II) at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure, where applicable, and draft policy proposals are routinely issued through the NIH Guide and the Federal Register , as appropriate, to obtain early feedback into policy proposals. Once a proposal has been issued for public comment, it is often supplemented with informational webinars, interactive discussion sessions, and a robust public engagement plan to promote broad dissemination and engagement in the policymaking process. NIH considers all comments submitted on draft polices and policy proposals to ensure final policy proposals are informed by the community and capable of responding to emerging opportunities and challenges. Final policies are also issued through the NIH Guide and the Federal Register , as appropriate, and incorporated into the NIH Grants Policy Statement and NIH Policy Manual, as appropriate. Policies are also posted to NIH websites with additional resources such as Frequently Asked Questions and other supplemental resources as needed. It is the policy of NIH to: 1. Ensure the quality, accuracy, and transparency of scientific information used to support policy and decision making, including by: a. Using scientific information that is subject to well-established scientific processes. b. Ensuring that scientific data and research used to support policy decisions undergo review by qualified experts, where feasible and appropriate, and consistent with law. c. Adhering to the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. 30 For example, as described in the Bulletin, when independent peer reviews of scientific information products are conducted by contractors, a conflict-of-interest review will be conducted. 30 Office of Management and Budget. “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.” Federal Register . Doc. 05-769. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/01/14/05-769/final-information-quality-bulletin-for-peer-review. d. Reflecting scientific information appropriately and accurately and making scientific findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions publicly available online and in open formats, to the extent practicable. 2. Where legally permissible and appropriate, directly consult with Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484176 scientists whose work is being used in policy and management decisions to ensure that the science is accurately represented and interpreted. 3. Ensure, to the extent possible, the accuracy of NIH communication of the science upon which a policy decision is based. 4. Ensure that covered individuals are free to express differing scientific opinions free from political interference or inappropriate influence. IV. Ensuring Accountability NIH is firmly committed to establishing and formalizing procedures to identify and adjudicate allegations regarding compromised scientific processes or technological information. NIH has established several adjudication processes within distinct offices ( i.e., OER, OIR, and OMA), to address different ways in which scientific integrity may be violated. Each office handles allegations pertaining to its respective jurisdiction, but individuals may submit an oral or written allegation via email or hotline. When an allegation or complaint is received, the appropriate office determines if it is specific, credible, and meets the definition of research misconduct or an integrity violation. The procedures each office takes for investigating allegations or complaints, adjudication, and appeals are further detailed in the 2022 update to the NIH Policies and Procedures for Promoting Scientific Integrity at https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SI_Compendium-2022Update.pdf. The designation of an NIH SIO will allow for more centralized interagency communication and coordination concerning allegations to help ensure effective oversight and promote scientific integrity within the Federal Government. Additionally, the NIH SIO will provide review and adjudication of allegations (particularly related to political interference) that do not fall under the purview of these existing offices. It is the policy of NIH to: 1. Ensure correction of the scientific record and implementation of corrective scientific actions when allegations of a loss of scientific integrity are substantiated. Corrective actions may include correction or retraction of published scientific work or related media releases, release of inappropriately suppressed scientific materials, monitoring or supervision of future scientific activities, or required validation of data sources. 2. Encourage and facilitate early informal or formal consultation between covered individuals and scientific integrity officials to advise on preventing loss of scientific integrity, to determine whether a loss of scientific integrity has potentially occurred, and to ascertain whether an allegation should be referred elsewhere for resolution. 3. Provide clear guidance on how to formally and confidentially report concerns and allegations of loss of scientific integrity. Those who report concerns and allegations need not be directly involved or witness a violation. 4. Ensure that the NIH SIO or other NIH entities draft procedures, as needed, to respond to allegations of loss of scientific integrity in a timely, objective, and thorough manner. These procedures will include an initial assessment and review, a fact-finding process, an adjudication or determination including description of remedies and preventative measures to safeguard the science, and reporting. 5. These procedures will document the necessary aspects for each step of the process as well as the roles of the NIH SIO and other agency staff in the process. V. Protections NIH prioritizes safe and respectful work environments that are free from harassment, including sexual harassment, discrimination, or other forms of inappropriate conduct that can result in a hostile work environment. Additionally, it is unlawful for NIH to take or threaten to take a personnel action against an employee because they made a protected disclosure of wrongdoing. A protected disclosure is defined as a disclosure of information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; and abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Personnel actions that are covered by this can include poor performance review, demotion, suspension, termination, or revocation or downgrade of a security clearance. If staff members believe that whistleblower retaliation has occurred, they may get more information from the HHS OIG at https://oig.hhs.gov/about-oig/. It is the policy of NIH to: 1. Select and retain candidates for NIH scientific and technical positions based on the candidate's scientific and technical knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity, and hold them and their supervisors to the highest standards of professional and scientific ethics. 31 Support scientists and researchers including, but not limited to, Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality; and advance the equitable delivery of Federal programs. 31 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Sourcebook on Personnel. Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/personnel. 2. Promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the scientific workforce and create and support the creation of safe workspaces that are free from harassment and discrimination. 32 32 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 1311 on Preventing and Addressing Harassment and Inappropriate Conduct and the NIH Sourcebook Addendum to BSC Policies and Procedures. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/1311 and https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/processes-reviewing-nih-intramural-science/boards-scientific-counselors/addendum-policies-procedures. 3. Protect from reprisal those individuals who report allegations in good faith of loss of scientific integrity. Efforts will be made to protect the privacy of individuals involved in allegations. 4. Prevent covered individuals from intimidating or coercing NIH scientists to alter scientific data, findings, or professional opinions or from inappropriately influencing scientific advisory boards. 5. Comply with whistleblower protections, specifically: a. The requirements of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, and its expanded protections enacted by Public Law 103-424 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, 5 U.S.C. part 2302(b)(8)-(9). b. The National Defense Authorization Act's expansion of certain whistleblower protections to employees of Federal Government contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients in 41 U.S.C. part 4712. c. Presidential Policy Directive 19, which prohibits supervisors from taking, failing to take, or threatening to take or fail to take any action affecting an employee's eligibility for access to classified information in retaliation for making a protected disclosure. d. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act (codified at 10 U.S.C. 1034), which is made applicable to the Public Health Service Commissioned Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484177 Corps officers through 42 U.S.C. 213a(a)(18) and implemented by Commissioned Corps Directive 121.06. 6. Ensure scientific integrity staff at NIH are protected by all applicable employee rights as required by law. An SIO or other scientific integrity staff may only be terminated or reassigned for reasons consistent with applicable law. VI. Professional Development for Government Scientists A key aspect of the NIH effort to advance scientific integrity is encouraging NIH scientists and covered individuals to engage with the broader research community in maintaining the highest ethical standards and scientific norms, while adhering to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635). 33 Creating an inclusive environment for scientists from all backgrounds, including those from traditionally underrepresented groups, is essential to supporting scientific integrity. The IRP promotes professional development of all researchers from trainees at every level, to tenure-track and tenured investigators, and all other research staff. Scholarly writing, lecturing, editing, and publishing are essential parts of research and professional development. These activities are in the public interest and bring credit and distinction to both NIH and its employees. In encouraging researchers to share information about their official and professional activities, NIH seeks to advance scientific knowledge and contribute to its employees' professional education. 33 Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) provide the basic guidelines for official duty activities, and NIH sets the policy for implementing the guidelines at the agency. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2635. It is the policy of NIH to: 1. Encourage timely publication of research conducted by covered individuals such as in peer-reviewed, professional, scholarly journals, NIH technical reports and publications, or other appropriate outlets. 34 34 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Public Access Policy. Available at: https://sharing.nih.gov/public-access-policy. 2. Encourage the sharing of scientific activities, findings, and materials developed by covered individuals through appropriate avenues including digital repositories. 35 35 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. Available at: https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy. 3. Encourage covered individuals to participate in and present research at professional meetings including workshops, conferences, and symposia. 36 36 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Sourcebook on Tenure in the NIH Intramural Research Program. Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/tenure-nih-intramural-research-program. 4. When appropriate, permit covered individuals to serve on editorial boards, as peer reviewers, or as editors of professional or scholarly journals. 5. When appropriate, permit covered individuals to participate in professional societies, committees, task forces, and other specialized bodies of professional societies, including removing barriers to serving as officers or on governing boards of such societies, to the extent allowed by law. 37 37 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Sourcebook on Activities with Outside Organizations and the NIH Official Duty Activities Chart. Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/research-ethics/nih-policies/intramural-extramural-collaborations/activities-outside-organizations and https://ethics.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/topics/ODA/2-ODA-Chart.pdf. 6. Permit NIH scientists to receive honors and awards for contributions to scientific activities and discoveries to the extent allowed by law, and to accrue the professional recognition of such honors or awards. 7. Permit covered individuals to perform outreach and engagement activities, such as speaking to community and student groups, as part of their official duties as appropriate. VII. Federal Advisory Committees FACs, as defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) at https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/federal-advisory-committee-management/legislation-and-regulations/the-federal-advisory-committee-act, are an important tool within NIH for ensuring the credibility, quality, and transparency of NIH science. NIH will adhere to FACA and develop policies in coordination with the General Services Administration and consistent with the guidance on lobbyists serving on FACs when convening FACs tasked with giving scientific advice. Consistent with all applicable laws and guidance regarding FACs, it is the policy of NIH to: 1. Promote transparency in the recruitment of new FAC members, including, when practical and appropriate, announcing vacancies with a notification in the Federal Register . 2. Select members to serve on a scientific or technical FAC based on expertise, knowledge, and contribution to the relevant subject area. 38 39 Additional factors that may be considered are availability of the member to serve, alignment with the relevant Federal Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan, and the ability to work effectively on advisory committees. 40 Ensure committee membership is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented with respect to the functions to be performed by the FAC. 41 42 38 This provision is further outlined in How Scientists Are Selected to Be Members of a Chartered Review Group. Available at: https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForReviewers/BecomeAReviewer/CharteredReviewers. 39 This provision refers to not only FACA Councils that have SGE members but also peer review FACA committees that have NIH peer review consultants as members. 40 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Selection Criteria for NIH Advisory Committees. Available at: https://ofacp.nih.gov/committees/selection_criteria. 41 2010 Memorandum from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on Scientific Integrity. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientific-integrity-memo-12172010.pdf. 42 General Services Administration 41 CFR part 102-3 Federal Management Regulation: Federal Advisory Committee Management. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/GSA-FMR-2022-0015-0010. 3. Comply with current standards governing conflict of interest as defined in statutes and implementing regulations. 43 44 43 This provision is further outlined in the NIH Policy Manual Chapter 1810 on Procedures for Avoiding Conflict of Interest for Special and other Federal Employees Serving as Advisory Committee Members. Available at: https://policymanual.nih.gov/1810-1. 44 The NIH Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy maintains the Special Government Employee (SGE) Portal for those interested in serving on an NIH Federal advisory committee as an SGE. The Portal contains all the requirements expected of advisory committee members who serve on advisory committees as SGEs, including ethics training, Foreign Activities and Lobbyist Certification, and the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE 450) at: https://sgeportal.od.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx. 4. Except when prohibited by law and to the extent practical, agencies should appoint members of scientific and technical FACs as Special Government Employees. 5. Treat all reports, recommendations, and products produced by FACs solely as the reports, recommendations, and products of such committees rather than of the U.S. Government, and thus not subject to intra- or inter-agency revision. The role of the FACs is to provide advice or recommendations to the agency. The agency may then craft policy based on the FACs' advice or recommendations if it chooses to adopt those recommendations. Addressing Scientific Integrity Concerns The NIH SIO has primary responsibility for assessing scientific Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484178 integrity concerns and will develop procedures for addressing allegations of loss of scientific integrity and concerns that span or fall outside existing NIH adjudication mechanisms under the purview of OER, OIR, OMA, or OIG ( e.g., as related to waste, fraud, abuse, and illegal activities). 45 In particular, the NIH SIO will manage scientific integrity concerns related to political interference, if they do not fall within existing processes. Procedures for handling scientific integrity concerns will be made available on the NIH website. For information about rights and remedies against retaliation, employees may contact the HHS OIG Whistleblower Protection Coordinator. 46 As noted above, existing procedures under the purview of OER, OIR, OMA, and OIG ( e.g., as related to waste, fraud, abuse, and illegal activities) should continue to be followed. When those existing mechanisms do not cover a scientific integrity concern: 45 OER reviews and refers allegations of research misconduct involving extramural researchers and peer review of grant applications to the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and may take corrective action against a grantee or peer reviewer based on the conduct identified in ORI findings. OIR reviews allegations related to research integrity involving NIH IRP researchers. The NIH Division of Program Integrity within OMA manages the review of allegations involving misuse of NIH grant or contractor funds, grantee or contractor conflicts of interest, and other misconduct or misuses of NIH resources by NIH employees or others doing business with NIH. The HHS OIG investigates allegations of criminal fraud, waste, and abuse. 46 As appropriate, employees can also contact the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion for information regarding retaliation based on protected equal employment opportunity or the HHS Office of Special Counsel for information regarding retaliation based on whistleblowing. Further information can be found at: https://www.edi.nih.gov/services/federal-EEO-complaint-process and https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/whistleblower/. Additionally, although encouraged to use the process detailed herein, employees may also disclose wrongdoing to their supervisor or another individual higher up in management, the HHS OIG, the Office of Special Counsel, or to Congress. 1. Concerns about a potential loss of scientific integrity at NIH may be reported to the NIH SIO by any individual who has knowledge of the situation. Reporting can be done anonymously. 2. NIH employees are encouraged to seek an informal consultation with the NIH SIO or other relevant agency integrity officials to discuss whether a concern constitutes a potential loss of scientific integrity before submitting a formal complaint. Employees ultimately have the discretion to submit a formal complaint as they see fit without reprisal. 3. The SIO will oversee an initial assessment of each reported concern and determine whether to request additional information from the complainant or others, as appropriate and feasible, and to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. Additionally, if any reported concern falls within the purview of existing OER, OIR, OMA, or OIG processes, those mechanisms will instead be utilized. 4. Should an investigation be opened, an investigation committee consisting of the NIH SIO and other agency integrity officials (including from the NIH Scientific Integrity Council, as appropriate) will be convened to develop a factual record by exploring the allegation(s) in detail and consulting with subject matter experts, interviewing witnesses, and reviewing documentation as needed. 5. Once the investigation is complete, the NIH SIO will determine whether scientific integrity was lost and report findings to the appropriate management entity. 6. The complainant and respondent will be given the opportunity to appeal a finding or any corrective scientific actions taken. Handling Differing Scientific Opinions Science and decisions based on science are strengthened by vigorous discussion and debate and by considering all available evidence. The process of challenging and improving ideas helps to guard against inadequate science and flawed analysis. Scientists can hold differing opinions without violating scientific integrity, and NIH encourages its scientists to respectfully express and engage with differing views as an integral part of the scientific process. 47 Differing scientific opinions are diverging views held by researchers who are substantively engaged in the science subject area. In some cases, such as when a scientific dispute has a significant impact on public health or policy, a formal scientific dispute resolution process may be necessary. The goal of scientific dispute resolution should be to ensure that all perspectives are heard and documented in an unbiased way. A satisfactory resolution may involve adopting one opinion over another, deciding to conduct additional studies, formulating an alternate theory reconciling the differing opinions, or documenting the disagreement for the benefit of policymakers and fellow scientists. These steps may be completed in any order and are not necessarily an exhaustive list of dispute resolution measures. In general: 47 Further information on the NIH IRP Authorship Conflict Resolution Process can be found in the NIH Sourcebook. Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/authorship-guidelines-resources/nih-irp-authorship-conflict-resolution-process. • A team member or group of team members with a differing opinion may engage with their colleagues to resolve the issue as soon as the difference of opinion is known. NIH recommends this type of internal discussion as a first step in most dispute resolution proceedings. • A team may choose to consult a manager. First-level managers may defer to an appropriate higher-level manager if the first-level manager has a conflict of interest or cannot offer an impartial opinion for any reason. • If the matter cannot be satisfactorily resolved by other means, a team may request assistance from OIR. The NIH SIO may be consulted if their assistance is requested or if there is a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest with relevant OIR staff. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Reporting Scientific Integrity Activities and Outcomes NIH, working through HHS, will develop and implement an evaluation plan to regularly measure, monitor, and evaluate ongoing scientific integrity activities and outcomes. The plan will include a roadmap of activities, evaluation metrics, and methods of measurement for the purpose of ongoing improvement of scientific integrity processes, procedures, and policies. As part of the monitoring and evaluation plan, an annual report on the number and outcomes of investigations involving allegations of loss of scientific integrity will be published. For investigations that have been resolved, the report will include an aggregate summary of the types of corrective actions recommended by the investigation panel to restore scientific integrity, and a summary of the types of actions ultimately taken. To the extent possible, all descriptions of investigations will be anonymized. Related Policies and Statutes Violations of related and supporting policies may result in a loss of scientific integrity and it is appropriate for the SIO to coordinate across the agency in these matters, as appropriate. The following policies and programs intersect with the development of the culture of scientific integrity within the agency. Research Misconduct• Federal Research Misconduct Policy: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/12/06/00-30852/executive-office-of-the-president- Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484179 federal-policy-on-research-misconduct-preamble-for-research
• Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-93
• NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3006—NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) Research Misconduct Proceedings: h ttps://policymanual.nih.gov/3006
• NIH IRP Policies and Procedures for Research Misconduct Proceedings: https://oir.nih.gov/system/files/media/file/2021-08/policy-nih_irp_research_misconduct_proceedings.pdf
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in Addressing and Strengthening Scientific Integrity and the Disproportional Impact of Scientific Integrity Policy Violations on Underrepresented Groups• HHS Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment Policy: https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asa/eeo/policy/index.html
• Government-Wide Strategic Plan to Advance Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Strategic-Plan-to-Advance-Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-and-Accessibility-in-the-Federal-Workforce-11.23.21.pdf
• HHS Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan 2022: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-hhs-deia-strategic-plan.pdf
• NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Fiscal Years 2023-2027: https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/nih-wide-strategic-plan-deia-fy23-27.pdf
Public Access• NIH Public Access Policy: https://sharing.nih.gov/public-access-policy
• OSTP Memorandum on Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research (2013): https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
• OSTP Memorandum on Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research (2022): https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf
• 5 U.S.C. part 552—Freedom of Information Act: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-5
Human and Animal Subject Protections• Federal Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects (the Common Rule): https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html
• Animal Welfare Act and Regulations: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_BlueBook_AWA_508_comp_version.pdf
• Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm
• Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf
• U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training: https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/gov-principles.htm
• NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3014—NIH Intramural Human Research Protection Program: https://policymanual.nih.gov/3014
• NIH Policy Manual Chapter 3040-2—Animal Care and Use in the Intramural Research Program: https://policymanual.nih.gov/3040-2
Research Security• National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM 33): https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-united-states-government-supported-research-development-national-security-policy/
• Guidance for Implementing NSPM 33: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/010422-NSPM-33-Implementation-Guidance.pdf
Whistleblower Protections• 5 U.S.C. part 2302—Prohibited personnel practices: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=29&f=treesort&num=125
• Public Law 101-12—Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg16.pdf
• Public Law 103-424—Expansion of Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-108/pdf/STATUTE-108-Pg4361.pdf#page=3
• Public Law 112-199—Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012: https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1465.pdf
• 41 U.S.C. part 4712—Enhancement of contractor protection from reprisal for disclosure of certain information: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:41%20section:4712%20edition:prelim)
• Presidential Policy Directive 19—Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ppd.pdf
• U.S. Office of Special Counsel: https://osc.gov/
• 10 U.S.C. part 1034, made applicable to the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps through 42 U.S.C. 213a(a)(18) and implemented by Commissioned Corps Directive (CCD) 121.06: https://dcp.psc.gov/ccmis/ccis/documents/CCD121_06.pdf
Other Related Policies• NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy: https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy
• Public Law 115-435—Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (“Evidence Act”): https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf
• Public Law 107-174—Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act (“No FEAR Act”): https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/107/174.pdf
• U.S. Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/durc-policy.pdf
• U.S. Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/us-policy-durc-032812.pdf
• Public Law 92-463—The Federal Advisory Committee Act: https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/92/463.pdf
• Public Law 104-13—Paperwork Reduction Act: https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ13/PLAW-104publ13.pdf
Authorities Pursuant to the 2021 Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/, and consistent with the 2009 Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09 and the 2010 Memorandum from Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484180 the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on Scientific Integrity at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientific-integrity-memo-12172010.pdf, all Federal agencies must establish a scientific integrity policy. The requirements of this policy are derived from the 2022 National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Report of the Scientific Integrity Fast Track Action Committee, Protecting the Integrity of Government Science, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22-Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.pdf, and align with the principles set forth in the NSTC guidance document, A Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/01-2023-Framework-for-Federal-Scientific-Integrity-Policy-and-Practice.pdf. This policy is established in accordance with:1. Public Law 111-358—The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, Section 103, as amended
2. Public Law 115-435—The Foundations for Evidence-based Policymaking Act of 2018
3. Public Law 106-554—The Information Quality Act of 2000
4. 67 FR 8451—OMB Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies
5. 70 FR 2664—OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
6. 65 FR 76260-76264—Federal Policy on Research Misconduct
7. Public Law 101-12—The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 1989, as amended
8. 41 U.S.C. part 4712—The National Defense Authorization Act, Enhancement of contractor protection from reprisal for disclosure of certain information
9. 5 U.S.C. part 13103 et seq. —The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, and 5 CFR parts 2634 and 2635, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and Certificates of Divestiture and Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
10. 18 U.S.C. parts 201-209—Statutes regarding Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest
11. 5 CFR parts 5501 and 5502—Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Health and Human Services
12. 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10—The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972
13. 45 CFR part 73—Standards of Conduct
14. 5 CFR part 735—Employee Responsibilities and Conduct
15. 45 CFR part 46—HHS Protection of Human Subjects Regulation
16. PPD 19—Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information, 2012
17. M-20-12—OMB Phase 4 Implementation of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018: Program Evaluation Standards and Practices
18. 42 CFR part 93—Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct
19. 10 U.S.C. part 1034, made applicable to the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps through 42 U.S.C. 213a(a)(18) and implemented by Commissioned Corps Directive (CCD) 121.06
20. Public Law No 117-328—Health Extenders, Improving Access to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, and Strengthening Public Health Act of 2022, Division FF, Title II, Section 2321
21. Public Law No 117-167—CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, Title VI, Subtitle D, Section 10631
Dated: October 15, 2024. Lawrence A. Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. 2024-24225 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-PSAMHSA data collection | Number of respondents | Responses per respondent | Total number of responses | Burden hours per response | Total burden hours | Hourly wage 1 | Total wage cost |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grantee-Level Instrument | 189 | 4 | 756 | .30 | 226.80 | $28.89 | $6,552.25 |
Grantee-Level Instrument | 189 | 1 | 189 | .25 | 47.25 | 28.89 | 1,365.05 |
Total | 378 | 5 | 945 | .55 | 274.05 | 28.89 | 7,917.30 |
1 The hourly wage estimate is $28.89 based on the Occupational Employment and Wages, Mean Hourly Wage Rate for 21-1018 Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and Mental Health Counselors= $28.89/hr. as of May 2023 ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211018.htm Accessed on September 23, 2024.) |
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)
Nicholas A. Shufro, Assistant Administrator (Acting) for Risk Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484182 Bourbon County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2385 City of Bronson City Hall, 505 Clay Street, Bronson, KS 66716. City of Fort Scott City Hall, 123 South Main Street, Fort Scott, KS 66701. City of Fulton City Hall, 214 West Osage Street, Fulton, KS 66738. City of Mapleton Community Center, 565 North Eldora Street, Mapleton, KS 66754. City of Redfield Community Center, 312 North Pine Street, Redfield, KS 66769. Unincorporated Areas of Bourbon County Bourbon County Courthouse, 210 South National Avenue, Fort Scott, KS 66701. Adair County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2393 City of Brashear City Hall, 105 East Main Street, Brashear, MO 63533. City of Kirksville City Hall, 201 South Franklin Street, Kirksville, MO 63501. City of Novinger City Hall, 302 Marion Avenue, Novinger, MO 63559. Unincorporated Areas of Adair County Adair County Courthouse, 106 West Washington Street, Kirksville, MO 63501. Yankton County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2377 City of Irene City Hall, 110 South Till Avenue, Irene, SD 57037. City of Yankton City Hall, 416 Walnut Street, Yankton, SD 57078. Town of Gayville Town Shop, 408 Merchant Street, Gayville, SD 57031. Town of Mission Hill City Hall, 118 Washington Avenue, Mission Hill, SD 57046. Town of Utica Utica Multiuse Facility, 303 3rd Street, Utica, SD 57067. Town of Volin Town Hall, 300 Main Street, Volin, SD 57072. Unincorporated Areas of Yankton County Yankton County Government Center, 321 West 3rd Street, Yankton, SD 57078. Carter County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2371 City of Elizabethton City Hall Building Department, 136 South Sycamore Street, Elizabethton, TN 37643. Unincorporated Areas of Carter County Carter County Planning and Zoning, 300 North Main Street, Elizabethton, TN 37643. Dekalb County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2290 Unincorporated Areas of Dekalb County Dekalb County Courthouse, 1 Public Square, Room 204, Smithville, TN 37166. Putnam County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2307 Unincorporated Areas of Putnam County Putnam County Planning Office, 67 South Elm Avenue, Cookeville, TN 38501. Smith County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2303 Town of Carthage Municipal Building, 314 Spring Street, Carthage, TN 37030. Town of Gordonsville City Hall, 63 East Main Street, Gordonsville, TN 38563. Town of South Carthage South Carthage Town Hall/Municipal Building, 106 South Main Street, Carthage TN 37030. Unincorporated Areas of Smith County Smith County Planning Commission, 303 High Street North, Carthage, TN 37030. Amherst County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2370 Town of Amherst Town Hall, 174 South Main Street, Amherst, VA 24521. Unincorporated Areas of Amherst County Amherst County Administration Building, 153 Washington Street, Amherst, VA 24521. Klickitat County, Washington and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2292 City of Bingen City Hall, 112 North Ash Street, Bingen, WA 98605. City of Goldendale City Hall, 1103 South Columbus Avenue, Goldendale, WA 98620. City of White Salmon City Hall, 100 North Main Street, White Salmon, WA 98672. Unincorporated Areas of Klickitat County Klickitat County Services Building, 115 West Court Street, Mail Stop 302, Goldendale, WA 98620.Community | Community map repository address |
---|---|
Bourbon County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2385 | |
City of Bronson | City Hall, 505 Clay Street, Bronson, KS 66716. |
City of Fort Scott | City Hall, 123 South Main Street, Fort Scott, KS 66701. |
City of Fulton | City Hall, 214 West Osage Street, Fulton, KS 66738. |
City of Mapleton | Community Center, 565 North Eldora Street, Mapleton, KS 66754. |
City of Redfield | Community Center, 312 North Pine Street, Redfield, KS 66769. |
Unincorporated Areas of Bourbon County | Bourbon County Courthouse, 210 South National Avenue, Fort Scott, KS 66701. |
Adair County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2393 | |
City of Brashear | City Hall, 105 East Main Street, Brashear, MO 63533. |
City of Kirksville | City Hall, 201 South Franklin Street, Kirksville, MO 63501. |
City of Novinger | City Hall, 302 Marion Avenue, Novinger, MO 63559. |
Unincorporated Areas of Adair County | Adair County Courthouse, 106 West Washington Street, Kirksville, MO 63501. |
Yankton County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2377 | |
City of Irene | City Hall, 110 South Till Avenue, Irene, SD 57037. |
City of Yankton | City Hall, 416 Walnut Street, Yankton, SD 57078. |
Town of Gayville | Town Shop, 408 Merchant Street, Gayville, SD 57031. |
Town of Mission Hill | City Hall, 118 Washington Avenue, Mission Hill, SD 57046. |
Town of Utica | Utica Multiuse Facility, 303 3rd Street, Utica, SD 57067. |
Town of Volin | Town Hall, 300 Main Street, Volin, SD 57072. |
Unincorporated Areas of Yankton County | Yankton County Government Center, 321 West 3rd Street, Yankton, SD 57078. |
Carter County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2371 | |
City of Elizabethton | City Hall Building Department, 136 South Sycamore Street, Elizabethton, TN 37643. |
Unincorporated Areas of Carter County | Carter County Planning and Zoning, 300 North Main Street, Elizabethton, TN 37643. |
Dekalb County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2290 | |
Unincorporated Areas of Dekalb County | Dekalb County Courthouse, 1 Public Square, Room 204, Smithville, TN 37166. |
Putnam County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2307 | |
Unincorporated Areas of Putnam County | Putnam County Planning Office, 67 South Elm Avenue, Cookeville, TN 38501. |
Smith County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2303 | |
Town of Carthage | Municipal Building, 314 Spring Street, Carthage, TN 37030. |
Town of Gordonsville | City Hall, 63 East Main Street, Gordonsville, TN 38563. |
Town of South Carthage | South Carthage Town Hall/Municipal Building, 106 South Main Street, Carthage TN 37030. |
Unincorporated Areas of Smith County | Smith County Planning Commission, 303 High Street North, Carthage, TN 37030. |
Amherst County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2370 | |
Town of Amherst | Town Hall, 174 South Main Street, Amherst, VA 24521. |
Unincorporated Areas of Amherst County | Amherst County Administration Building, 153 Washington Street, Amherst, VA 24521. |
Klickitat County, Washington and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-2292 | |
City of Bingen | City Hall, 112 North Ash Street, Bingen, WA 98605. |
City of Goldendale | City Hall, 1103 South Columbus Avenue, Goldendale, WA 98620. |
City of White Salmon | City Hall, 100 North Main Street, White Salmon, WA 98672. |
Unincorporated Areas of Klickitat County | Klickitat County Services Building, 115 West Court Street, Mail Stop 302, Goldendale, WA 98620. |
Type of submission | Number of respondents | Frequency of submissions | Total responses | Estimate average time (hours) | Estimate annual burden (hours) | Hourly rate * | Total annual cost |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Federal Financial Report (SF-425) | 240 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Contract and Subcontract Activity Report (HUD-2516) | 240 | 1 | 240 | 0.5 | 120 | $43.55 | $5,226 |
Annual Status and Evaluation Report (ASER) | 240 | 1.25 | 300 | 4 | 1,200 | 43.55 | 52,260 |
Total | 720 | 1,500 | 5.5 | 1,320 | 57,486 |
Application Number | Applicant | Species | Location | Activity | Type of take | Permit action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES809630 | Allen Kurta, Ypsilanti, MI | Add new species—tricolored bat ( Perimyotis subflavus )—to existing authorized species: Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) and northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis ) | IL, IN, MI, OH | Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, and evaluate impacts | Capture with mist nets or harp traps, identify, handle, collect non-intrusive measurements, band, radio tag, enter hibernacula, and release | Renew and amend. |
ESPER0009122 | Emily Grossman, O'Fallon, MO | Add new species—western fanshell ( Cyprogenia aberti ) and Ouachita fanshell ( Cyprogenia sp. cf. aberti ) to the list of 21 freshwater mussel species | AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, WI, WV | Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, and evaluate impacts | Capture, dentify, handle, collect non-intrusive measurements, tag, and relocate in special circumstances | Amend. |
ES64081B | Joseph Hoyt, Blacksburg, VI | Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) and northern long-eared bat ( M. septentrionalis ) | IL, MI, NY, WI | Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, and evaluate impacts | Add harp trapping to mist netting, pit tagging, capture, handle, enter hibernacula, bio sample and release | Amend. |
Application No. | Applicant, city, state | Species | Location | Take activity | Permit action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES003483-35 | U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Honolulu, HI | Pacific sheath-tailed bat ( Emballonura semicaudata rotensis ) | Hawaii | Harass by videographic and acoustic monitoring and collection of cave information | Amend. |
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10)
Thomas Beard, Senior Administrator, National Climate Adaptation Science Center. [FR Doc. 2024-24269 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-PT. 1 N., R. 79 W.,
Sec. 8, Parcels A, B, C, and D;
Sec. 17, Parcels A and B, NE 1/4 NW 1/4 , S 1/2 NW 1/4 , and N 1/2 SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 18, lot 3.
T. 1 N., R. 80 W.,
Sec. 13, lots 1 thru 4;
Sec. 14, SW 1/4 SE 1/4 and that portion of the S 1/2 SW 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly right-of-way fence of Grand County Road No. 33, described in the warranty deed recorded April 23, 1999, with Reception No. 99004513, and depicted on Survey Plat LS400, filed on July 13, 1995, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado;
Sec. 15, lots 9 and 11, S 1/2 SW 1/4 , S 1/2 SE 1/4 , and a metes-and-bounds parcel located in the N 1/2 SW 1/4 and described in the warranty deed recorded April 23, 1999, with Reception No. 99004513, and depicted on Survey Plat LS398, filed July 13, 1995, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado;
Sec. 16, those portions of the metes-and-bounds parcels located in the S 1/2 SW 1/4 and S 1/2 SE 1/4 and described in the warranty deed recorded April 23, 1999, with Reception No. 99004513, and depicted on Survey Plats LS398 and LS399, filed July 13, 1995, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado, and that portion of the metes-and-bounds parcel located in the S 1/2 SW 1/4 and described in the deed in Book 127, page 567, recorded November 12, 1958, with Reception No. 88584, and the deed in Book 128, page 235, recorded February 10, 1959, with Reception No. 89020, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado;
Sec. 19, NE 1/4 SE 1/4 and a metes-and-bounds parcel located in the N 1/2 NE 1/4 and described in the warranty deed recorded April 23, 1999, with Reception No. 99004513, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado;
Sec. 20, lots 2 and 3, S 1/2 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NW 1/4 , and NE 1/4 SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 21, N 1/2 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NW 1/4 , and that portion of the N 1/2 NW 1/4 lying northerly of the centerline of Grand County Road No. 33 and described in the warranty deed recorded April 23, 1999, with Reception No. 99004513, and depicted on Survey Plat LS399, filed July 13, 1995, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado, and that portion of the metes-and-bounds parcel located in the N 1/2 NW 1/4 and described in the deed in Book 127, page 567, recorded November 12, 1958, with Reception No. 88584, and in the deed in Book 128, page 235, recorded February 10, 1959, with Reception No. 89020, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado;
Sec. 22, lots 1 thru 4.
T. 1 N., R. 81 W.,
Sec. 13, SW 1/4 SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 23, SE 1/4 NW 1/4 , NE 1/4 SW 1/4 , and NE 1/4 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 24, S 1/2 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NW 1/4 , and N 1/2 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 27, lots 1 thru 15;
Sec. 28, SE 1/4 SW 1/4 and SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 32, E 1/2 and SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 33, N 1/2 NE 1/4 , SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , and W 1/2 .
T. 1 S., R. 81 W.,
Sec. 5, lots 8 and 9;
Sec. 6, lots 6 and 7 and lots 9 thru 18;
Sec. 7, lots 5 thru 19;
Sec. 18, lots 1 and 2 and E 1/2 NW 1/4 .
T. 1 S., R. 82 W.,
Sec. 12, lots 1 thru 5, SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , E 1/2 SW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , and W 1/2 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 13, lots 1 thru 9, W 1/2 SW 1/4 , and that portion of tract 53 lying westerly of the medial line, an ambulatory line, of the Colorado River;
Sec. 14, SE 1/4 SW 1/4 , E 1/2 SE 1/4 , and SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 22, SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 23, NE 1/4 , E 1/2 NW 1/4 , SW 1/4 , and N 1/2 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 24, lots 1, 2, and 3, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 , and S 1/2 NW 1/4 ;
Sec. 27, SW 1/4 NW 1/4 , a metes-and-bounds parcel located in the W 1/2 NE 1/4 and E 1/2 NW 1/4 and described in the warranty deed in Book 420, pages 660-662, recorded June 26, 1987, with Reception No. 258382, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado, and a metes-and-bounds parcel located in the N 1/2 NW 1/4 and described in the deed in Book 695, pages 988-999C, recorded September 29, 1986, with Reception No. 374902, in the official records of Grand County, Colorado;
Sec. 28, lots 4, 5, and 6, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NE 1/4 , NE 1/4 SW 1/4 , NW 1/4 SE 1/4 , and SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 32, those portions of unpatented M.S. No. 13963 and tract 82 located in the E 1/2 , excepting M.S. Nos. 18347 A and 18670;
Sec. 33, lot 1, lots 3 thru 6, lots 8 thru 11, NE 1/4 , E 1/2 NW 1/4 , SW 1/4 NW 1/4 , and that portion of the Bona Dea Placer located in sec. 33;
Sec. 34, lot 1 and NW 1/4 NW 1/4 .
T. 2 S., R. 82 W.,
Sec. 4, lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19, lots 26 thru 30, S 1/2 NW 1/4 , NW 1/4 SW 1/4 , and that portion of the Bona Dea Placer located in sec. 4;
Sec. 5, lots 5, 6, and 11, lots 14 thru 22, lots 25 and 26, S 1/2 NE 1/4 , N 1/2 SE 1/4 , and that portion of the Bona Dea Placer located in sec. 5;
Sec. 6, lots 20, 30, 31, 32, 37, and 38, S 1/2 NE 1/4 , SE 1/4 NW 1/4 , E 1/2 SW 1/4 , and SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 7, lots 5 thru 7, lots 11 thru 21, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 , SE 1/4 SW 1/4 , and SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 18, lots 5 thru 12 and lots 14 thru 17.
T. 2 S., R. 83 W.,
Sec. 12, lot 4;
Sec. 13, lots 1 thru 4, W 1/2 NE 1/4 , E 1/2 SW 1/4 , and W 1/2 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 23, E 1/2 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 SW 1/4 , NE 1/4 SE 1/4 , SW 1/4 SE 1/4 , N 1/2 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 , N 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 , and N 1/2 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 24, lot 1, W 1/2 NE 1/4 , W 1/2 , and W 1/2 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 25, NW 1/4 ;
Sec. 26, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NE 1/4 , and NW 1/4 .
The areas described aggregate 12,121 acres. Reserved Federal Mineral Interests Sixth Principal Meridian, ColoradoT. 1 N., R. 80 W.,
Sec. 20, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 .
T. 1 N., R. 81 W.,
Sec. 28, N 1/2 SW 1/4 and SW 1/4 SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 29, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 .
T. 1 S., R. 82 W.,
Sec. 14, SW 1/4 SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 22, N 1/2 NE 1/4 , SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , and SW 1/4 ;
Sec. 23, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 ;
Sec. 26, lot 1 and SW 1/4 NW 1/4 ;
Sec. 27, lots 1 and 2 and N 1/2 SE 1/4 ;
Sec. 33, that portion of tract 70 located in sec. 33.
T. 2 S., R. 82 W.,
Sec. 4, lot 22;
Sec. 7, that portion of tract 41 located in sec. 7.
The areas described aggregate 939.56 acres. 2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the land other than under the general land laws and the United States mining laws. The public lands described in this order will remain open to such other forms of disposition as may be allowed by law on the public lands. Licenses, permits, and cooperative agreements for discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature that would not Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484191 significantly impact the values to be protected may be allowed with the approval of the authorized officer. 3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this Order, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal should be extended.(Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1714)
Robert T. Anderson, Solicitor. [FR Doc. 2024-24198 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4331-16-P(Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4-1)
Joseph Mendez, Acting BLM Utah State Director. [FR Doc. 2024-24197 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4331-25-PTroy Masonic Temple, 200 N Three Notch Street, Troy, SG100011023
FLORIDA Alachua CountyLakeshore Towers, 2306 Southwest 13th Street, Gainesville, SG100011031
Liberty CountyTorreya State Park (Boundary Increase), Address Restricted, Bristol vicinity, BC100011036
INDIANA Allen CountyFort Wayne Performing Arts Theatre, 303 East Main Street, Fort Wayne, SG100011042
Carroll CountyDelphi Residential Historic District, Roughly bounded by the Norfolk & Southern Railroad on the north and west, Front Street on the south, and Bowen Street (or a continuation thereof) on the east. Delphi, SG100011037
Dubois CountyFerdinand Historic District, Roughly bounded by 1st Street on the south, Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484193 Missouri Street on the west, 15th Street on the north, and Michigan Street on the east. Main Street includes extensions to the north and south. Ferdinand, SG100011043
Jefferson CountyHanover College Historic District, Roughly bounded by Prospect Street, College Avenue, and Ball Drive, Hanover, SG100011040
Johnson CountyFranklin College Historic District, Roughly bounded by East Monroe Street on the north, South Forsythe Street on the east, Grizzly Drive and Park Avenue on the south, and Branigin Boulevard on the west. Franklin, SG100011041
Steuben CountyPryor's Country Place, 1540 West Fox Lake Road, Angola, SG100011038
Tippecanoe CountyDavid and Harriet Hopwood House, 602 N Fifth Street, Lafayette, SG100011039
KANSAS Douglas CountyMalin, James and Pearl House, (Lawrence, Kansas MPS), 1541 University Drive, Lawrence, MP100011034
MASSACHUSETTS Essex CountyDavid S. Lynch Memorial Park, 55 Ober Street, Beverly, SG100011047
MONTANA Fergus CountyManley's General Store, 42 Garneill Road, Garneill, SG100011024
NEW JERSEY Mercer CountyThe Old School Baptist Church and Cemetery of Hopewell, 46 West Broad Street, Hopewell Borough, SG100011029
PENNSYLVANIA Carbon CountyBowmanstown School, (Educational Resources of Pennsylvania MPS), 490 Ore Street, Bowmanstown, MP100011046
Dauphin CountyCraig Family Cemetery, (African American Churches and Cemeteries in Pennsylvania, c. 1644-c. 1970 MPS), 401 Fishing Creek Valley Road, Harrisburg, MP100011045
UTAH Salt Lake CountySymphony Hall, 123 W South Temple, Salt Lake City, SG100011033
Utah CountyThurber School, 40 S Main St., Spanish Fork, SG100011044
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s): FLORIDA Hillsborough CountyCirculo Cubano de Tampa (Additional Documentation), 10th Ave. and 14th St., Tampa, AD72000320
St. Johns CountyAbbott Tract Historic District (Additional Documentation), Roughly bounded by Matanza's Bay, Pine, San Marco, and Shenandoah Aves., St. Augustine, AD83001438
MASSACHUSETTS Worcester CountyWashburn Square-Leicester Common Historic District (Additional Documentation), Main St., Washburn Sq., 3 Paxton St., Leicester, AD06000062
OREGON Washington CountySweek, John, House (Additional Documentation), 18815 SW Boones Ferry Rd., Tualatin, AD74001724
TENNESSEE Bedford CountyCooper, Gov. Prentice, House (Additional Documentation), 413 E Lane St., Shelbyville, AD75001729
Dickson CountyPromise Land School (Additional Documentation), 707 Promise Land Road, Promise, AD07000159
Fayette CountyCrawford General Store (Additional Documentation), 15360 TN-193, Williston, AD75001752
Washington CountySulphur Springs Methodist Campground (Additional Documentation), 101 Bayless Road, Jonesborough vicinity, AD75001796
Williamson CountyRainey House (Additional Documentation), 244 1st Ave., Franklin, AD70000621
(Authority: 36 CFR 60.13)
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. [FR Doc. 2024-24258 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-PLithiumHub, LLC, 125 Tate Road, Norris, SC 29667
Lithiumhub Technologies, LLC, 104 E Houston, Ste. 150, Marshall, TX 75670
Mr. Martin Koebler, 125 Tate Road, Norris, SC 29667
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, 2500 East Kearney Street, Springfield, MO 65898
Cabela's LLC, 2500 East Kearney Street, Springfield, MO 65898
Navico Group Americas LLC, N85 W12545 Westbrook Crossing, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Room 410, 4th Floor, Cui Hua Da Industrial, Park, No. 144 Botanical Garden Road, Nanyu E Community, Shenzhen, China
Renogy New Energy Co., LTD, 25A, Hengye Platinum, No. 1338, Sanxiang Road, Gusu District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu, China
RNG International Inc., 5050 S Archibald Avenue, Ontario, CA 91762
Clean Republic SODO LLC, 225 S Lucile St., Seattle, WA 98108
Shenzhen Yichen S-Power Tech Co. LTD, Floor 7, Building B4b, Yingzhan Industrial Zone, Longtian Community, Zehgzi Street, Pingshan District, Shenzhen, China
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics LTD, No 4-5, Fendmenyuan Industrial Park, Fenfhuang Avenue, Longgang Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Shenzhen LiTime Technology Co., LTD, Room 301, Building B, Baolong 5th Road, Baolong Community, Baolong Street, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Dragonfly Energy Corp., 1190 Trademark Dr. #108, Reno, NV 89521
Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., 1190 Trademark Dr. #108, Reno, NV 89521
MillerTech Energy Solutions LLC, 14632 Old State Road, Middlefield, OH 44062
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484195 submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 16, 2024. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2024-24285 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1).
The Agency considers these public interest factors in the disjunctive. Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). Each factor is weighed on a case-by-case basis. Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Any one factor, or combination of factors, may be decisive. David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37507, 37508 (1993). The inquiry is “focuse[d] on protecting the public interest.” Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 459, 462 (2009). The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44. While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), the Government's evidence in support of its prima facie case for revoking Respondent's registration is confined to Factors B and D. RD, at 24 n.24 (finding that Factors A, C, and E do not weigh for or against the sanction sought by the Government). Having reviewed the record and the RD, the Agency adopts the ALJ's analysis, and agrees that the Government's evidence satisfies its prima facie burden of showing that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. RD, at 27, 33; 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). B. Factors B and D Evidence is considered under public interest factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. See Sualeh Ashraf, M.D., 88 FR 1,095, 1,097 (2023); Kareem Hubbard, M.D., 87 FR 21,156, 21,162 (2022). DEA regulations allow registrants to issue electronic prescriptions for controlled substances in schedules II-V. 21 CFR 1311.100(b); RD, at 23. To issue an electronic prescription for a controlled substance, the prescriber must authenticate the prescription using at least two of the following factors: (1) “Something only the practitioner knows, such as a password or response to a challenge question”; (2) “Something the practitioner is, biometric data such as a fingerprint or iris scan”; and/or (3) “Something the practitioner has, a device (hard token) separate from the computer to which the practitioner is gaining access.” 21 CFR 1311.115(a), 1311.120(b)(5), (11); RD, at 23; Tr. 45. This two-factor authentication process “constitute[s] the signing of the prescription by the practitioner.” 21 CFR 1311.140(a)(5). “[O]nly the registrant may sign the prescription,” and when signing the prescription, the registrant must comply with the two-factor authentication requirement. 21 CFR 1311.135(a); RD, at 23. Although DEA regulations permit a non-registered agent to enter data on the prescription, the registrant must sign the prescription himself. Id. DEA regulations make clear that “[t]he practitioner must retain sole possession of the hard token” and “must not allow any other person to use the token.” 8 21 CFR 1311.102(a); RD, at 23. The regulation further states that the practitioner “must not share the password or other knowledge factor, or biometric information, with any other person” and “[t]he practitioner must not allow any other person to use the token or enter the knowledge factor or other identification means to sign prescriptions for controlled substances.” Id. “Failure by the practitioner to secure the hard token, knowledge factor, or biometric information may provide a basis for revocation or suspension of registration.” Id. 8 It is important to emphasize the clarity with which this requirement is stated in the regulation. The requirement to “retain sole possession” is stated simply, clearly, and unambiguously in plain language. See Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances, 75 FR 16236, 16277 (Mar. 31, 2010). To further emphasize this point, the RD put it well: the requirement to retain sole possession of the hard token is set forth “in plain, simple English, and is consistent with basic common sense.” RD, at 32. Regarding the hard token, substantial record evidence, including Respondent's admission, establishes that Respondent gave his hard token to CES staff in North Carolina and allowed them to maintain physical possession of it. RD, at 25-26; Tr. 53-59, 66-67, 227-31, 237, 285. Accordingly, substantial record evidence establishes that Respondent failed to “retain sole possession of the hard token,” in violation of 21 CFR 1311.102(a). RD, at 25-26; see also Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D., 87 FR 77637, 77637-38 (2022) (revoking respondent's registration, in part, for violating 21 CFR 1311.102(a) due to “entrusting his secure credentials to his wife and son and allowing them to access and provide his PIN” to prescribe controlled substances). Regarding credentials, substantial record evidence, including Respondent's admission, establishes that Respondent allowed CES to keep his signature on file to use in conjunction with the hard token in order to complete the two-factor authentication process for signing and issuing electronic controlled substance prescriptions on his behalf. RD, at 26; Tr. 44-45, 53-59, 157, 163, 222, 225-27, 229, 231, 280, 284; GX 14; GX 20-21 (prescriptions issued by CES staff to J.O. and three other patients). In so doing, Respondent violated federal and state regulations that prohibit any person other than the registrant from signing Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484197 and authenticating an electronic controlled substance prescription. RD, at 26; Tr. 57-58; 21 CFR 1311.135(a); 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 315.3(c)(1) (requiring Texas practitioners to comply with the requirements set forth in 21 CFR 1311). Respondent allowed illegal electronic controlled substance prescriptions to be issued under his registration by giving away his hard token and two-factor authentication credentials. 9 RD, at 4-5, 16, 26, 32; Tr. 42-43, 226. The regulations governing the issuance of electronic controlled substance prescriptions do not “relieve[] a practitioner of his responsibility to dispense controlled substances only for a legitimate medical purpose while acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1311.102(k); RD, at 23; see also 21 CFR 1311.100(f). “The practitioner has the same responsibilities when issuing [an electronic prescription] as when issuing a paper or oral prescription,” including the requirement “to ensure the validity of [that] prescription.” 21 CFR 1311.102(k); RD, at 23. 9 The Agency finds that it is not necessary to determine the precise number of prescriptions that were issued by CES with Respondent's hard token and credentials. RD, at 26. The record clearly establishes and Respondent admitted that prescriptions were being issued under Respondent's registration for at least one patient he never saw (J.O.) and at quantities that exceeded the patients he did see. See RD, at 4, 20, 26; GX 20, at 17-29; Tr. 41-43 (when the DI informed Respondent that the PMP showed 1,900 prescriptions had been issued under his registration, he responded that this number was “too high” because he only saw “about 20 to 25 patients”); Tr. 234, 236, 286-87, 297, 332. Under DEA regulations, a controlled substance prescription may only “be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Similarly, under Texas law, a controlled substance prescription may only be issued “for a valid medical purpose and in the course of medical practice.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.071(a). Texas law states that prescribing a controlled substance “without first establishing a valid practitioner-patient relationship” falls outside the scope of professional medical practice. 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 190.8(1)(L). Respondent admitted that he never established a doctor-patient relationship with J.O., yet thirteen prescriptions were written for J.O. using Respondent's hard token and electronic signature. 10 RD, at 8-9, 18, 26; Tr. 107-09, 148-56, 161-63, 234, 286-87, 296-97, 332; GX 20, 24. Accordingly, these prescriptions were issued without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice, in violation of federal and state law. 11 RD, at 26; 21 CFR 1306.04(a); Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.071(a); 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 190.8(1)(L). 10 The allegation that Respondent failed to establish a doctor-patient relationship in this case pertains only to J.O. Tr. 92. Although the Government admitted additional prescriptions into evidence that CES staff issued using Respondent's hard token—all of which were issued in violation of 21 CFR 1311.135(a)—the Government has not alleged that Respondent failed to establish a doctor-patient relationship with these patients. Tr. 81-82, 92. 11 It is a long-standing principle of diversion law that DEA registrants are “strictly liable for all activities which occur under the authority of their registrations.” Sigrid Sanchez, M.D., 78 FR 39331, 39336 (2013). In line with this well-established principle, it is reasonable to find that a registrant can be held liable for controlled substances being prescribed outside the usual course of professional practice even when issued by someone else under his registration. For instance, where a registrant's actions allow an unregistered person to prescribe controlled substances, as Respondent did here, the registrant can be found in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Robert G. Hallermeier, M.D., 62 FR 26818, 26820 (1997). This is because the purpose of § 1306.04(a)—to ensure that “patients use controlled substances under the supervision of a doctor so as to prevent” diversion—is thwarted when a registrant allows an unregistered person to prescribe controlled substances under the registrant's registration to patients the registrant has never seen, which occurred in this case. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006). When a registrant allows an unauthorized person to prescribe controlled substances, such as when Respondent allowed CES's unregistered staff to prescribe controlled substances to patients Respondent had never seen, the registrant creates a “substantial risk that the drugs would be diverted and abused,” which undermines the purpose of § 1306.04(a)'s prescription requirement. Arvinder Singh, M.D., 81 FR 8247, 8249 (2016). Holding a registrant liable for violating § 1306.04(a) where prescriptions are issued by someone else under his registration is an extension of the Agency's precedent and the principle that registrants are “strictly liable for all activities which occur under the authority of their registrations.” Sigrid Sanchez, M.D., 78 FR at 39336. For example, in the context of electronic prescriptions, the Agency has revoked a registration, in part, due to the registrant “improperly issu[ing] electronic controlled substance prescriptions by entrusting his secure credentials to his wife and son and allowing them to access and provide his PIN in the issuance of those prescriptions.” Allen Alexander Rashford, M.D., 87 FR at 77638. Similarly, DEA has long held that when a registrant allows other individuals to use their registration, a serious violation is committed. See Brian Thomas Nichol, M.D., 83 FR 47352, 47367 (2018) (concluding respondent committed a “serious violation of the CSA” when he pre-signed prescriptions and gave them to unregistered staff, creating a “substantial risk” of diversion and abuse); Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D., 72 FR 4035, 4041-42 (2007) (affirming an immediate suspension order where a registrant allowed another person to use her DEA credentials to obtain controlled substances and where such misconduct demonstrated “indifference to her obligations” and created a danger to public safety); Anthony L. Cappelli, M.D., 59 FR 42288, 42288 (1994) (“By allowing an unregistered and unauthorized person to use his DEA number, Respondent was responsible for any use and misuse of that number. Moreover, such a violation is aggravated by the fact that Respondent allowed a non-practitioner to use his DEA number at an unregistered location.”). In sum, and in agreement with the RD, the Agency finds that the record contains substantial evidence that Respondent acted in violation of both federal and state law. RD, at 24-27; 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4); 21 CFR 1306.04(a), 1311.100(f), 1311.102(a), (k), 1311.115(a), 1311.120(b)(5), (b)(11), 1311.125(c), 1311.135(a), 1311.140(a)(5); 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 315.3(c)(1); Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.071(a). In weighing factors B and D, the Agency finds that the Government has established a prima facie case that Respondent committed acts that render his registration inconsistent with the public interest and support revocation of his registration. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1); RD, at 27. III. Sanction Where, as here, the Government has established sufficient grounds to issue a sanction against Respondent's registration, the burden shifts to the registrant to show why he can be entrusted with the responsibility carried by a registration. Garret Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18910 (2018). “[T]rust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based” on individual circumstances; therefore, the Agency looks at factors such as “the acceptance of responsibility and the credibility of that acceptance as it relates to the probability of repeat violations or behavior,” “the nature of the misconduct that forms the basis for sanction,” and “the Agency's interest in deterring similar acts.” Robert Wayne Locklear, M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33746 (2021). To be effective, acceptance of responsibility must be unequivocal. Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018). When a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest, he must both accept responsibility and demonstrate that he has undertaken corrective measures. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., d/b/a CVS/Pharmacy Nos. 219 and 5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Respondent has failed to fully and credibly accept responsibility for the proven misconduct. RD, at 27-29. When asked about his decision to surrender physical possession of the hard token to CES, Respondent expressed regret and remorse. RD, at 28; Tr. 229, 316. Respondent testified that turning over the hard token was “a decision that [he] now regret[s] and [is] extremely remorseful about.” RD, at 28; Tr. 229, 316. Regret and remorse, however, are not the same as taking Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484198 ownership of the misconduct, its gravity, and its threat to public safety. 12 12 See Nicholas P. Roussis, M.D., 86 FR 59190, 59194 (2021) (explaining “remorse and acceptance of responsibility are not the same thing” in that a respondent's remorse is primarily concerned with his unpleasant feelings whereas a full acceptance of responsibility acknowledges the harm his actions posed to the public); Ibrahim Al-Qawaqneh, D.D.S., 86 FR 10354, 10357 (2021) (finding that regret did not amount to acceptance of responsibility). When specifically asked whether he accepted responsibility, he testified that he “accept[s] full responsibility for the mistakes that occurred.” RD, at 28; Tr. 335. However, that acceptance of responsibility was far from unequivocal as Respondent repeatedly blamed his decision to give up possession of the token on CES. RD, at 28. Respondent testified that in trusting CES with his hard token, he had “the wool pulled over [his] eyes.” Id.; Tr. 238. He testified that CES created an impression of being compliant with state and federal law. RD, at 13-17. Specifically, he testified about receiving a memorandum from the company's CEO detailing the effects of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) of 2000 on the company's prescribing practices, RD, at 16; Tr. 199-204; RX 4, and how this memorandum gave him assurance that CES was taking regulatory compliance seriously. RD, at 16; Tr. 209-10. He also testified about a July 2021 audit report written by the company's compliance officer, a former DEA DI, which memorialized the policy that the company and its agents were authorized to issue controlled substance prescriptions on behalf of the provider. RD, at 13-16; Tr. 219-27, 314; RX 2, at 18. Respondent testified that he was “impressed that [CES] took the trouble and had retained a retired DEA investigator as their chief compliance officer to ensure that the company was following rules and regulations.” RD, at 12; Tr. 189-93, 334. He testified that all these assurances led him to believe that CES had more expertise than he did regarding regulatory compliance. RD, at 13, 31-32; Tr. 230, 283-84, 321. Respondent also testified that he read the requirement to retain sole possession of the hard token prior to joining CES, 13 but blamed the company for misinterpreting the regulation. 14 RD, at 28, 31-32; Tr. 315-16. Shifting the blame onto the company further undermines his attempt to accept responsibility. 15 Id. 13 Respondent testified that he read 21 CFR 1311.102(a) as part of his due diligence before joining CES; however, when the Government asked whether he was aware of a regulation prohibiting the surrender of a hard token to someone else, Respondent stated: “No. Not before I joined CES. I was not aware of this.” Tr. 316. The first words of 21 CFR 1311.102(a) are “[t]he practitioner must retain sole possession of the hard token.” Respondent's testimony that he read this regulation, given his claim that he was not aware that he had to keep the hard token, causes the Agency to question Respondent's credibility. RD, at 31; see also Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR 74,800, 74809 (2015) (holding ignorance of the CSA or DEA's regulations are no defense to proven violations). 14 He acknowledged that nowhere in the company's protocols or manuals was there an assurance from the company that surrendering his hard token complied with DEA regulations. RD, at 18; Tr. 318-19. 15 He testified that he “understand[s] the gravity of my—the mistakes that have occurred.” RD, at 28; Tr. 244. Rather than take ownership by calling them “my mistakes,” he referred to mistakes in a passive and general sense. See also Tr. 335 (referring broadly to “mistakes that occurred”). Indeed, the majority of his testimony reveals that Respondent understands the “mistakes” to mean the mistakes that CES made and the mistake that he made in trusting CES. RD, at 28; see Sualeh Ashraf, M.D., 88 FR at 1098 (discrediting respondent's acceptance of responsibility due to him blaming someone else for being the “criminal mind” behind the misconduct); Michael A. White, M.D., 79 FR 62957, 62967-68 (2014) (finding that the standard for accepting responsibility was not met where respondent blamed others for his misconduct); Robert Raymond Reppy, D.O., 76 FR 61,154, 61,180 (2011) (finding that respondent failed to fully and credibly accept responsibility where most of his testimony shifted blame to others and focused on how he was “duped” into violating the CSA). Furthermore, although Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that protecting his registration is “solely” his responsibility, this after-the-fact realization conflicts with other parts of his testimony where he blamed CES for his failure to protect his DEA registration. Tr. 335. Furthermore, Respondent testified that when he gave up physical possession of his hard token, he believed CES would only use the token and his credentials to issue controlled substance prescriptions for patients with whom Respondent had established a doctor-patient relationship. RD, at 16, 32; Tr. 222-23, 230, 284. Even if this was his intention, relinquishing control of the token in-and-of-itself was a clear violation of 21 CFR 1311.102(a) that allowed diversion to occur. Respondent's attempt to downplay his misconduct further undermines his acceptance of responsibility and calls into question whether he truly understands the gravity of his misconduct. RD, at 30-32. In sum, the Agency agrees with the RD that Respondent failed to unequivocally accept responsibility for the proven violations. RD, at 27-29. The Agency is only required to consider remedial measures where a respondent has tendered a full and credible acceptance of responsibility. Ajay S. Ahuja, M.D., 84 FR 5479, 5498 n.33 (2019); Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR at 74810. Here, the Agency need not consider remedial measures given the lack of acceptance of responsibility. RD, at 29. Nevertheless, even if Respondent had accepted responsibility, his proposed remedial measures would not change the outcome of this case. 16 Id. 16 Respondent's proposed remedial measures included deactivating all tokens that he was no longer using; hiring a third-party to conduct a regulatory compliance audit of his practice; searching the PMP for prescriptions issued under his COR; and writing a controlled substances protocol for other practitioners. Tr. 238-43. Although these measures are not without merit, the proposed remediation fails to convince the Agency that he can be trusted with a registration. John Qian, M.D., 89 FR 59934, 59937-38 (2024). In this regard, even if these measures were enacted, Respondent's insufficient acceptance of responsibility demonstrated that he believes it was CES, not himself, who bore ultimate responsibility for the proven misconduct. RD, at 27-28. In this sense, Respondent's proposed measures are not backed up by his willingness to take personal responsibility for his actions, and therefore, their remedial efficacy rings hollow. Jeffrey Pollock, P.A., 89 FR 54052, 54058 n.38 (2024). Additionally, the proposed measures are misplaced. Deactivating unused tokens and auditing his practice have no relevance to the proven violation of failing to maintain sole possession of his hard token and not sharing his authentication credentials. Likewise, checking the PMP and instructing other practitioners on their responsibilities have no bearing on the misconduct, especially given the fact that he believes the misconduct was primarily CES's fault for misleading him. RD, at 27-28. Furthermore, in light of the egregiousness of the misconduct and the need for deterrence, his proposed remedial measures are insufficient. Id. at 29. In addition to acceptance of responsibility, the Agency looks to the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct. Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR at 18910 (collecting cases), and considers both specific and general deterrence when determining an appropriate sanction. Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR at 74810. Here, the Agency agrees with the ALJ that Respondent's misconduct was egregious. RD, at 29-30. The CSA establishes a “closed system for regulating the distribution” of controlled substances “to prevent the diversion of these substances to those who would either abuse them or sell them to those who do.” Holiday CVS, L.L.C., d/b/a CVS/Pharmacy Nos. 219 and 5195, 77 FR at 62317 (citing Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 250). DEA regulations contain a clear mandate to “retain sole possession of the hard token” for a reason: to keep the closed system of distribution closed. 17 Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 250-51. Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484199 In this case, Respondent enabled unregistered individuals at an unregistered location to issue multiple controlled substance prescriptions, including at least a year's worth of controlled substance prescriptions for patient J.O. whom Respondent had never evaluated. RD, at 4-5, 16, 18, 26, 29-30; Tr. 42-43, 50, 225-26. Therefore, by giving away his hard token and two-factor authentication data to unauthorized persons, Respondent committed egregious violations of DEA's regulations that created a risk of diversion and threatened public safety. RD, at 29-31. 17 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Agency explained that by requiring registrants to retain sole possession of the hard token, “the practitioner can eliminate the risk of fraudulent prescriptions and, if the token is lost, stolen, or compromised, he will be immediately alerted to the threat and have the authentication protocol revoked.” See Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances, 73 FR 36722, 36737 (June 27, 2008). The Agency further explained that the requirement for the practitioner to retain sole possession of the hard token serves to protect the practitioner as well as the pharmacy from forged or fraudulent prescriptions, and to provide “assurance that only a legitimate practitioner issued the prescription.” Id. The Agency also concludes that revocation of Respondent's registration is necessary to deter the registrant community from engaging in similar misconduct. RD, at 30-31. There is simply no conceivable world in which it is acceptable for a practitioner to give away his or her prescribing credentials to anyone else, including a telemedicine platform. When a practitioner is awarded the privilege of prescribing controlled substances in the form of a registration, that privilege belongs to the registrant and the registrant alone—it cannot be given away. The Agency agrees with the ALJ that the interests of general deterrence support revocation, as a lack of sanction in the current matter would send a message to the registrant community that giving away a hard token and two-factor authentication credentials can be overlooked and excused. RD, at 30; see also Jeffrey Pollock, P.A., 89 FR at 54058. Revocation is also necessary to impress upon Respondent the seriousness of his misconduct and to deter him from committing the same misconduct in the future. Id. In sum, Respondent has not offered sufficient mitigating evidence to establish that he can be trusted with the responsibility of maintaining a DEA registration. RD, at 27-33. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent's registration be revoked. RD, at 33. Order Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FS2968444 issued to Neeraj B. Shah, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Neeraj B. Shah, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Neeraj B. Shah, M.D., for additional registration in Texas. This Order is effective November 20, 2024. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 10, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register . Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-24189 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P—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, Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484202 including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and/or
—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.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number 1140-0003. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Justice, information collections currently under review by OMB. DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. Overview of This Information Collection 1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection. 2. Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers. 3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: ATF Form 3310.4. Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. 4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected Public: State, local and tribal governments, individuals or households, Private Sector-for or not for profit institutions, Federal Government. Abstract: Title 18, United States Code 923(g)(3) provides that “Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales of other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols or revolvers totaling two or more, to an unlicensed person.” The report shall be prepared on ATF F 3310.4, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolver. Obligation to Respond: The obligation to respond is mandatory per Title 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3). 5. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 78,657 of respondents. 6. Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes. 7. Frequency: 8.247 annually. 8. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 162,163 hours. 9. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $47,351. If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: October 16, 2024. Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 2024-24270 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D))
Nicole Bouchet, Senior Paperwork Reduction Act Analyst. [FR Doc. 2024-24186 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P• To join the Zoom meeting by computer, please use this link.
○ https://lsc-gov.zoom.us/j/89157264167?pwd=F4bAVwfs6sBMvmcb2fqg5coCJATKwG.1&from=addon
○ Meeting ID: 891 5726 4167
○ Passcode: 102824
Tuesday, October 29, 2024• To join the Zoom meeting by computer, please use this link.
○ https://lsc-gov.zoom.us/j/88396199799?pwd=uyxthqpvn5ocgpxexn6jp108fun3ub.1&from=addon
○ Meeting ID: 883 9619 9799
○ Passcode: 102924
○ If calling from outside the U.S., find your local number here: https://lsc-gov.zoom.us/u/acCVpRj1FD
Once connected to Zoom, please immediately mute your computer or telephone. Members of the public are asked to keep their computers or telephones muted to eliminate background noise. To avoid disrupting the meetings, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Board or Committee Chair may solicit comments from the public. To participate in the meeting during public comment, use the `raise your hand' or `chat' functions in Zoom and wait to be recognized by the Chair before stating your questions and/or comments. STATUS: Open, except as noted below. Audit Committee—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to receive a briefing by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on active enforcement matter(s) and follow up on open investigation referrals to and from the Office of Inspector General (ACC § VIII A (5)); receive briefings by LSC Management regarding the status of the TN-4 Service Area; and receive briefings on significant grantee oversight activities. Board of Directors—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to receive briefings from Management and the Inspector General; to receive the General Counsel's Report on outside counsel expenditures; to consider and act on the General Counsel's Report on potential and pending litigation involving LSC; and to consider and act on a list of prospective Leaders Council and Emerging Leaders Council members. Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 1 1 5 U.S.C. 552b (a) (2) and (b). See also 45 CFR 1622.2 & 1622.3. A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed sessions of the Audit and the Board of Directors meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (7), (9) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Meeting Schedule Monday, October 28, 2024 Start Time 9:00 a.m. ET Audit Committee Open to the Public1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes of the Committee's Open Session Meeting on July 22, 2024
3. Update on reassessment of the Committee's Charter (Audit Committee Charter (ACC) § D (2))
4. Update on selection of external auditor and the scope and plan for LSC's forthcoming required annual financial statement audit (ACC §§ VII (1) and VIII A (1))
5. Briefing by the Office of Inspector General (ACC § VIII A (3) and (ACC § VIII A (4)), to include:
a. Update on key activities and accomplishments over the last quarter, and overview of plans and key priorities for the next quarter,
b. Highlights of recently completed audit work, open recommendations as reported in the latest Semi-Annual Report to Congress, ongoing work, and plans for the next quarter, and
c. Highlights of recently completed investigative work, ongoing work, and plans for the next quarter.
6. Review LSC's efforts, including training and education, to help ensure that LSC employees and grantees act ethically and safeguard LSC Funds (ACC § VIII C (6))
7. Management Update Regarding Risk Management
8. Briefing by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on referrals by the Office of Inspector General regarding Audit Reports and Annual Financial Statement Audits of Grantees (ACC § VIII A (5))
9. Public Comment
10. Consider and Act on Other Business
11. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Open Session Meeting and Proceed to a Closed Session Meeting
Portions Closed to the Public12. Approval of Minutes of the Committee's Closed Session Meeting on July 22, 2024
13. Briefing by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on active enforcement matter(s) and follow-up on open investigation referrals to and from the Office of Inspector General (ACC § VIII A (5)) Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484204
14. Briefing by LSC Management Regarding Status of TN-4 Service Area
15. Briefing by LSC Management Regarding Significant Grantee Oversight Activities
16. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2024 Start Time 12:30 p.m. ET Finance Committee Open to the Public1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Open Session Meeting on July 11, 2024
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Open Session Meeting on July 22, 2024
4. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Closed Session Meeting on July 22, 2024
5. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Closed Session Meeting on September 23, 2024
6. Presentation of LSC's Preliminary Financial Results for Fiscal Year 2024
7. Report on status of Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriation and Disaster Supplemental Request
8. Presentation of Fiscal Year 2025 Management and Grants Oversight Budget
9. Consider and Act on Resolution #2024-XXX: Temporary Operating Budget and Special Circumstance Operating Authority for Fiscal Year 2025
10. Update on Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request
11. Public Comment
12. Consider and Act on Other Business
13. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
Tuesday, October 29, 2024 Start Time 8:30 a.m. ET Board of Directors Open to the Public1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Announcement of Results of Recent Notational Votes
a. Resolution #2024-007: Ratifying the Collective Bargaining Agreement through 2028
b. Resolution #2024-008: Authorization to Enter into Line of Credit Agreement (FY 2024)
4. Approval of Minutes of the Board's Open Session Meeting on July 24, 2024
5. Consider and Act on Resolution #2024-XXX: In Memoriam of Phyllis J. Holmen
6. Chairman's Report
7. Members' Reports
8. President's Report
9. Briefing on LSC's Office Relocation
10. Briefing on Grantee Activity Reports
11. Inspector General's Report
12. Consider and Act on the Report of the Delivery of Legal Services Committee (Meeting held October 7)
13. Consider and Act on the Report of the Operations and Regulations Committee (Meeting held October 7)
14. Consider and Act on the Report of the Governance and Performance Review Committee (Meeting held October 8)
15. Consider and Act on the Report of the Institutional Advancement Committee (Meeting held October 15) and Communications Subcommittee (Meeting held October 7)
16. Consider and Act on the Report of the Audit Committee
17. Consider and Act on the Report of the Finance Committee
a. Consider and Act on Resolution #2024-XXX: Temporary Operating Budget and Special Circumstance Operating Authority for Fiscal Year 2025
18. Public Comment
19. Consider and Act on Other Business
20. Consider and Act on Whether to Authorize a Closed Session of the Board to Address Items Listed Below
Portions Closed to the Public21. Approval of Minutes of the Board's Closed Session Meeting on July 24, 2024
22. Management Briefing
23. Inspector General's Briefing
24. General Counsel's Report on Outside Counsel Expenditures and Litigation Report
25. Consider and Act on General Counsel's Report on Potential and Pending Litigation Involving Legal Services Corporation
26. Consider and Act on List of Prospective Leaders Council and Emerging Leaders Council Invitees
27. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1626. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to wechterj@lsc.gov. Non-Confidential Meeting Materials: Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC website, at https://www.lsc.gov/about-lsc/board-meeting-materials.(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)
Dated: October 16, 2024. Stefanie Davis, Deputy General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation. [FR Doc. 2024-24380 Filed 10-17-24; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P• Welcome and overview of the TIP Advisory Committee's charge
• Introduction to TIP, including current portfolio of investments and partnerships
• Strategic recommendations for TIP
• Next steps and closing remarks
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484206 Dated: October 16, 2024. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 2024-24376 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-PPOWERTECH (USA) INC.
(Dewey Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facility)
Powertech (USA) Inc. requests a renewed license that, if granted, would authorize it to operate the Dewey-Burdock Uranium In-Situ Recovery Facility for 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The facility has not yet been constructed, but if constructed, it would be located in Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota. In response to a notice filed in the Federal Register announcing the opportunity to request a hearing, see 89 FR 65401 (Aug. 9, 2024), the following petitioners filed a hearing request on October 8, 2024: (1) Susan Henderson; and (2) the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, and NDN Collective. The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:Jeremy A. Mercer, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Nicholas G. Trikouros, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. See 10 CFR 2.302. Rockville, Maryland Dated: October 15, 2024. Edward R. Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. 2024-24195 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-PDocument description | ADAMS Accession No. |
---|---|
Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 3 for the HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage, dated August 9, 2017 | ML17214A040. |
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant—Registration of Spent Fuel Storage Cask Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2), dated February 24, 2022 | ML22059B061. |
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant—Request for Exemption from Various 10 CFR part 72 Regulations Resulting from Non-Destruction-Examination Compliance, dated August 4, 2022 | ML22216A078. |
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant—Response to Request for Supplemental Information (D-RSI) Request for Exemption from Non-Destruction-Examination Compliance, dated December 19, 2022 | ML22353A066. |
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant—Response to Follow-up Questions to TVA's Response to NRC's Request for Supplemental Information (RSI) Related to August 4, 2022, Sequoyah ISFSI Exemption Request, dated April 27, 2023 | ML23117A116. |
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant—Response to NRC's November 8, 2023, Request for Additional Information—Related to Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, dated January 3, 2024 | ML24004A040. |
Issuance of Exemption Related to Non-Destructive Examination Compliance Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, dated September 18, 2024 | ML24185A172 (Package). |
Document description | ADAMS accession No. |
---|---|
Submission for Approval of the Standard Practice and Procedures Plan (SPPP) Revision for Global Laser Enrichment Headquarters, dated July 16, 2024 | ML24199A106 |
SPPP Update Revision, dated September 12, 2024 | ML24261B962 |
use the same “pool” of workers at the facility regardless of which Employer currently is awarded the contract. Contributions supporting future benefit accruals and satisfying any unfunded past liabilities are made on behalf of the same pool of employees and the same number of [CBUs]. Consequently, the change in the signatory Employer under a new contract has little or no effect on the funded position of the Pension Fund.
The Plan asserts that the Special Rule may induce new employers to bid on covered work, and that this, in turn, will promote the health of the Plan and reduce risk to the insurance system. The Plan submitted all information required under 29 CFR 4203.4(d) and supplemental information that PBGC required under 29 CFR 4203.4(e). Notice and Comment On January 18, 2023, PBGC published notice of pendency of the Plan's request in the Federal Register . 1 Comments were due on March 6, 2023. PBGC received no comments. 1 See 88 FR 2974. Summary of the Special Rule The Special Rule would apply: (1) only to each employer obligated to contribute to the Plan for work performed under a contract or subcontract to provide services to a federal government agency (an “Original Employer”); (2) only when an Original Employer loses one or more such contracts (“Federal Contracts”) to an unrelated “Successor Employer” that has an obligation to contribute to the Plan meeting certain requirements designed to ensure a stable contribution base, as described below. Complete Withdrawals A complete withdrawal will not occur if an Original Employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute to the Plan because it loses all Federal Contracts under which it performed work for which contributions were required, and is performing no other work for which contributions are required, if: (1) Substantially all the employees for whom the Original Employer was obligated to contribute continue to perform work under one or more Federal Contracts with a Successor Employer (which may include a Successor Employer subsequent to the initial Successor Employer); and (2) For the 5 plan years following that in which the Original Employer lost all its Federal Contracts, the Successor Employer has an obligation to contribute to the Plan for the work that had been performed under the Original Employer's Federal Contract(s): (a) At the same or a higher contribution rate as the highest contribution rate of the Original Employer; and (b) For substantially the same number of CBUs as those for which the Original Employer had an obligation to contribute in the final plan year preceding that in which it lost all its Federal Contracts. Notwithstanding these rules, the Original Employer does completely withdrawal as of the date it ceased to have an obligation to contribute to the Plan or ceased all covered operations under the Plan if, within the 5 plan years following that in which the Original Employer lost all its Federal Contracts, either: (i) The Federal Contract of the Successor Employer is terminated, and no subsequent Successor Employer is obligated to contribute to the Plan under the conditions described in paragraphs 2(a) and (b); or (ii) The Successor Employer ceases contributions to the Plan for the work performed under the Federal Contract, or fails to meet the contribution conditions described in paragraphs 2(a) and (b). Partial Withdrawals If an Original Employer loses one or more but not all its Federal Contracts to a Successor Employer, or loses all its Federal Contracts to a Successor Employer but continues to have an obligation under a CBA to contribute to the Plan for other operations, the following rules apply. The CBUs attributable to the work performed under the Federal Contract are excluded in determining whether the Original Employer has experienced a partial withdrawal under section 4205(a)(1) of ERISA, and the loss of the Federal Contract is not considered a facility closing, if: (1) For the 5 plan years following that in which the Original Employer lost a Federal Contract to a Successor Employer, the Successor Employer has an obligation to contribute to the Plan for work formerly performed under the Original Employer's Federal Contract: (a) At the same or a higher contribution rate as the highest contribution rate of the Original Employer; and (b) For substantially the same number of CBUs as those for which the Original Employer had an obligation to contribute in the final plan year preceding the plan year in which the Original Employer lost the Federal Contract. Notwithstanding these rules, the Original Employer will experience a partial withdrawal if: (i) Within the 5 plan years following that in which the Original Employer lost one or more but not all its Federal Contracts, the Successor Employer's Federal Contract is terminated and no subsequent Successor Employer is obligated to contribute to the Plan under the conditions described in paragraphs 1(a) and (b); (ii) Within the 5 plan years following that in which the Original Employer lost one or more but less than all its Federal Contracts, the Successor Employer ceases contributions to the Plan or does not contribute to the Plan under the conditions described in paragraphs 1(a) and (b); or (iii) The Original Employer either loses a Federal Contract to a Successor Employer or bargains out of a Federal Contract and there is no Successor Employer with an obligation to contribute to the Plan under the conditions described in paragraphs 1(a) and (b). Bona Fide Sale of Assets As originally adopted on October 14, 2021, the Special Rule provided that, if an Original Employer engages in a bona fide, arm's-length sale of assets to an unrelated purchaser (“Buyer”), the Buyer would be treated as a Successor Employer. That provision was inconsistent with applicable law under section 4204 of ERISA. On June 6, 2024, the Plan adopted an amendment removing this provision of the Special Rule. Effective Date The Special Rule would be effective for (i) complete withdrawals under Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484211 section 4203(a) of ERISA on or after January 1, 2021; (ii) partial withdrawals under section 4205(a)(1) of ERISA during any three-year testing period beginning on or after January 1, 2019; and (iii) partial withdrawals under section 4205(a)(2) of ERISA on or after January 1, 2021. Under 29 CFR 4203.3(a), a special withdrawal liability may not be put into effect until it is approved by PBGC. Determinations Regarding the Special Rule Under section 4203(f) of ERISA and 29 CFR 4203.5(a), PBGC must make two determinations before approving a plan amendment that provides a special withdrawal liability rule. First, based on a showing by the plan, PBGC must determine that the special withdrawal liability rule will apply only to an industry with characteristics that would make it appropriate to exempt employers from withdrawal liability under the rule. Second, PBGC must determine that the special withdrawal liability rule will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. After review of the information submitted by the Plan, and having received no public comments, PBGC has made the determinations required to approve the Special Rule. The Special Rule would apply only to a narrow, Plan-specific industry consisting of Original Employers obligated to contribute to the Plan for work performed under a Federal Contract, and only when an Original Employer loses its contract to a Successor Employer that signs an agreement with the Union requiring contributions to the Plan. PBGC determined that the characteristics of this narrowly defined industry make it appropriate to exempt employers from withdrawal liability under the terms of the Special Rule. Those terms limit the risk of loss to PBGC. The Special Rule only applies if a Successor Employer contributes at the same or a higher contribution rate as the highest contribution rate, and for a comparable number of CBUs, as the Original Employer. The Plan has demonstrated a history of stable or increasing aggregate contributions notwithstanding employer withdrawals, which is consistent with the amount of covered work being undiminished when one federal contractor providing commissary services at a federal facility is replaced by another obligated to contribute to the Plan at the same rate for the same work at the facility. The Plan is a green-zone plan. Its annual reports for plan years 2011 through 2022 show increasing active participants and contributions, despite at least a dozen employer withdrawals over that period. The Plan reports that it was 103 percent funded on an actuarial basis as of January 1, 2022. Conclusion Based on the Plan's submissions and representations in connection with the request for approval, PBGC has determined that the Special Rule: (1) will apply only to an industry that has characteristics that would make the use of the Special Rule appropriate; and (2) will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. Therefore, under 29 CFR 4203.5, PBGC approves the plan amendment describing the Special Rule. PBGC's approval is specific to the Plan and to the plan amendment submitted for PBGC's approval. Any plan amendment revising the the Special Rule, other than to eliminate it entirely, must be submitted for PBGC's approval. Issued in Washington, DC. Ann Y. Orr, Acting Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. 2024-24212 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-PAll submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2024-009. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/self-regulatory-organization-rulemaking ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484213 Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website at ( https://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx ). Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2024-009 and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31). Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24205 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-PAll submissions should refer to file number SR-ISE-2024-48. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ISE-2024-48 and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24209 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-PAll submissions should refer to file number SR-PEARL-2024-48. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484218 submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-PEARL-2024-48 and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24206 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-PAll submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2024-38. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2024-38 and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 21 21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24204 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-PAll submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2024-64. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2024-64 and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 99 99 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24201 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484230 Dated: October 17, 2024. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24401 Filed 10-17-24; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-PAll submissions should refer to file number SR-FINRA-2024-016. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-FINRA-2024-016 and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59). Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-24202 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P1. Mark Blythe, Director of Field Service, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board
2. Peggy Gartner, Deputy Office Head, Office of Information and Resource Management, National Science Foundation
3. Leslie Bayless, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Daniel A. Lauretano, Sr., General Counsel. [FR Doc. 2024-24311 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8015-01-PPrimary Parishes: Iberville, Jefferson, St. Bernard, Tangipahoa.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)
Rafaela Monchek, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience. [FR Doc. 2024-24216 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-PPrimary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): McIntosh.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): All counties contiguous to the above-named county have been previously declared.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)
Rafaela Monchek, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience. [FR Doc. 2024-24180 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-PPrimary Counties: Alachua, Bradford, Duval, Union.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)
Rafaela Monchek, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience. [FR Doc. 2024-24184 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-PPrimary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Collier, Duval, Putnam, Union.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
Florida: Broward, Clay, Flagler, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Nassau, St. Johns, Volusia. Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 202484234
Georgia: Charlton, Ware.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)
Rafaela Monchek, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience. [FR Doc. 2024-24182 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P—Adoption of the agenda
—Report of the Secretary-General on credentials
—Rules of Procedure
—Strategy and Planning
—Resource Management
—Consolidated text of the IMO Convention
—Enhancement of multilingualism
—IMO Member State Audit Scheme
—Enhancement of GISIS
—Report of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee
—Global maritime training institutions
—External relations
—Report on the status of conventions
—Place, date and duration of the next session of the Council (C 134) and items for inclusion in the provisional agendas for the next two sessions of the Council (C 134 and C 135)
—Supplementary agenda items, if any
Please note: the IMO may, on short notice, adjust the C 133 agenda to accommodate the constraints associated with the meeting format. Any changes to the agenda will be reported to those who RSVP. Those who plan to participate should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Emily Rowan, by email at Emily.K.Rowan@uscg.mil , or in writing at 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, by November 7, 2024. Members of the public needing reasonable accommodation should advise the meeting coordinator not later than October 31, 2024. Requests made after that date will be considered but might not be possible to fulfill. Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/IMO.(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2656 and 5 U.S.C. 552)
Leslie W. Hunt, Coast Guard Liaison Officer, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. 2024-24275 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-P(Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.49).
By Order of the Maritime Administrator. T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-24293 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P(Authority: 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.93; 36 CFR part 800; 5 U.S.C. 552b.)
By Order of the Maritime Administrator. T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-24181 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2024-24310 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P• Informational sessions
• Updates on NHTSA Initiatives
• Subcommittee Reports on Advisory Statuses
• Strategic Planning
III. Public Participation This meeting will be open to the public. We are committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. Persons with disabilities in need of an accommodation should send a request to the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice no later than October 31, 2024. A period of time will be allotted for comments from members of the public joining the meeting. Members of the public may present questions and comments to the Council using the live chat feature available during the meeting. Members of the public may also submit materials, questions, and comments in advance to the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Members of the public wishing to reserve time to speak directly to the Council during the meeting must submit a request. The request must include the name, contact information (address, phone number, and email address), and organizational affiliation of the individual wishing to address NEMSAC; it must also include a written copy of prepared remarks and must be forwarded to the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice no later than October 31, 2024. All advance submissions will be reviewed by the Council Chairperson and Designated Federal Officer. If approved, advance submissions shall be circulated to NEMSAC representatives for review prior to the meeting. All advance submissions will become part of the official record of the meeting. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300d-4(b); 49 CFR part 1.95(i)(4). Issued in Washington, DC Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan, Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development. [FR Doc. 2024-24243 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-PInformation collection | Respondents | Total annual responses | Time per response | Total annual burden hours |
---|---|---|---|---|
Flammable Cryogenic Liquids—Reporting | 175 | 18,200 | 3.5 minutes | 1,062 |
Flammable Cryogenic Liquids—Recordkeeping | 175 | 18,200 | 30 seconds | 152 |
Information collection | Respondents | Total annual responses | Time per response | Total annual burden hours |
---|---|---|---|---|
Basic Written Response Plan—New Plans | 80 | 80 | 33 hours | 2,640 |
Basic Written Response Plan—Updating Plans | 7,920 | 7,920 | 1 hour | 7,920 |
Information collection | Respondents | Total annual responses | Time per response | Total annual burden hours |
---|---|---|---|---|
UN Pressure Receptacle Approval—New Request | 35 | 35 | 6 hours | 210 |
UN Pressure Receptacle Approval—Modified Request | 100 | 100 | 6 hours | 600 |
UN Pressure Receptacle Approval—Recordkeeping | 75 | 75 | 6 minutes | 8 |
(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )
Maribel Aponte, VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs. [FR Doc. 2024-24234 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )
Maribel Aponte, VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs. [FR Doc. 2024-24235 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P